Difference between the Natural

If you look at modern western and westernised societies which are highly industrialised, have a strong middle class and are equally highly heterosexualised, the concepts of manhood that are practised, enforced upon men and propagated through media, are diagonally opposite to what manhood had meant in original human societies and what naturally is the essence of manhood.

What transpired between when human civilizations started and when they've reached today's modern industrialised societies, to have changed the notions of manhood so drastically. Although, this is not the scope of this article, an analysis of this process will help us understand greatly the true nature and extent of the oppression of men. E.g; we must find out, if the heterosexual version of manhood is so removed from how it occurs in nature, then it must require a lot of manipulations and oppressive social mechanisms to sustain them. But, at the outset, the Western societies look so free and fair, to have such extreme oppression of men. Indeed these societies cry themselves hoarse, bragging about their freedom and fairness. While they go around judging other societies as to their oppressive practices.

But before we start, let's look at some of the terms that we are going to use in this article:

Natural, Traditional and Heterosexual models of manhood are practiced in Natural, Traditional and Heterosexual human societies respectively.

„„Natural societies: By natural societies we mean human societies which were the closest to nature, i.e. which were based totally on the natural and basic instincts of human beings as mammals, very close to how they lived in forests as animals.

Such societies would have existed for a long time, and so would have concepts of manhood that they practiced, before some basic changes were made to it, as manhood started to become a tool for controlling men's life, as part of dirty politics around manhood.

„„Traditional Societies: By traditional societies we mean societies that came into being after substantial changes in human societies were made after the initiation of the marriage institution, and binding of man into it by making reproduction a necessary condition for granting social manhood.

Stage I: Stage I includes the period till when, although sex with women for reproduction had become important for granting of social manhood, sexual bonds between men continued to be the essence of manhood, a fact that was still recognised by the Formal Society. This continued till the times of the ancient Greeks.

Stage II: Stage II includes the period when, vaginal sex with women -- whether for reproduction or fun became an essential part of manhood, although the focus was still reproduction and not sex with women per se. However, the formal society now totally distanced itself from sexual/ romantic bonds between men, and disqualified them from social manhood.

However, since the men's spaces were virtually intact and extremely strong, and the formal society had little control over how things were practiced in there, sexual and romantic bonds between men continued to be the essence of manhood in these spaces. Although, now men had to lead two lives. One in the privacy of men's spaces where they could be themselves and be in touch with their true manhood. And the other, when they were in the formal space -- where they would not acknowledge any such need and even distance themselves from it. A number of the societies in the middle ages, all around the world, including the European societies and India come under stage II.

Societies like India and much of the non-Western world is, fortunately, still living under that traditional mode (Stage I), sometimes even with industrialisation. Although, a lot of heterosexualisation/ westernisation of social spaces has occurred in societies like India in the past few years.

(iv) immense economic and technological power gathered through industrialisation.

(v) immense restructuring of social spaces, including the destruction of men's spaces and their heterosexualisation, with this economic and technological power, including the power of the media.

(vi) immense manipulation with the traditional concepts of manhood, enforcing extreme versions of the social manhood of the Formal Society in these new heterosexual spaces, with no men's spaces to safeguard the interests of men.

(vii) Invention of extremely complex and sophisticated mechanisms and tools of men's oppression in order to sustain the extremely 'unnatural' notions of manhood.

We use the word Heterosexualised instead of Heterosexual, because the heterosexuality prevalent in these societies is not natural, but has been brought about through human manipulation.

„ Social manhood defined by Men's Spaces vs Social manhood defined by the Formal Society

„„ Men's Spaces: The social manhood defined by men's spaces represents the natural masculinity of men. Because men's spaces are ruled by men themselves. It's their space.

„„ Formal Society: The formal society, although it may look like is ruled by men, but in effect is often ruled by a small section of males who are contrary to the spirit of men's spaces and thus manhood itself. These males, some women and some members of the third sex, termed collectively as the 'Vested Interests' of men's oppression or the 'Forces of Heterosexualisation' have been ruling the formal social space for a few thousands of years now. Although in a minority, these forces have been empowered by those who initially controlled the society, in order to yolk the majority of men into reproduction.

Thus, in the beginning the social manhood defined by the formal society was in perfect tandem with the manhood defined by the men's spaces that represents the natural masculinity of men. However, gradually, as the control of the formal society went away from men's spaces to the Vested Interests, social manhood too started to become anti-man.

Actual social manhood practiced by men: In societies where men's spaces are even partially strong, the final manhood that men have to live by in their society is one that has elements of social manhood fixed by both men's spaces and the formal society, often in a complex ambiguous and hypocritical way. It comprises of:

(i) a combination of social manhood fixed by the Formal Society and Men's Spaces.

(ii) Double lives: Often one set of manhood is followed in the privacy of men's spaces and another in the formal society. Thus this politicisation of manhood has resulted in men being forced to lead double lives.

(iii) sometimes two diagonally opposite sets of social manhood fixed by Formal Society and Men's Spaces simultaneously exist, making things very complex to understand, and very ambiguous. But men have become experts at living this ambiguity.

However, all this has taken men away from their original nature and their entire life is spent living in these strange mazes of social manhood fixed by different forces. The success of a man actually depends upon how well, and how early in life, he manages to master these complex and hypocritical rules of social manhood.

Table depicting the difference in the Natural, Traditional and Western/ Heterosexualised models of Social Manhood

	Natural	Traditional	Western/ Heterosexual
	Men and women totally segregated	Segregation co-exists with marriage institution	Men and women totally mixed with or without marriage institution
Contact with women	Any kind of contact with women considered feminine, even sex with women for reproduction.	Reproduction and only sex with women for reproduction considered masculine in stage I. In stage II, even non-reproductive (only) vaginal intercourse considered masculine.	Reproduction not related with manhood. Sex with women is.
Non reproductive sexual contact with women	Non-reproductive sexual contact with women considered extremely feminine, enough to classify a male as "third gender" rather than a 'man'.	Any sex with women, apart from vaginal sexual intercourse considered extremely feminine and unmanly.	Any kind of sex with women, even submissive and non-vaginal sexual intercourse with women considered masculine.
Emotional contact with women	Emotional contact with women except with mother and sisters considered extremely feminine, enough to classify a male as third gender, instead of 'man'. Especially if this is accompanied by sexual bond.	Emotional contact with women except with mother and sisters considered extremely feminine, enough to classify a male as third gender, instead of 'man'. Especially if this is accompanied by sexual bond.	Emotional contact with women who are not related, especially those with whom men have sexual relationships, considered a basic requirement for manhood (now defined as "straighthood" and equated with "Heterosexuality).
Social contact with women	Social contacts with women (except in a limited way with those who are related by blood) considered extremely feminine, enough to classify a male as third gender, instead of 'man'.	Social contacts with women (except in a limited way with those who are related by blood) considered extremely feminine, enough to classify a male as third gender, instead of 'man'.	Social contacts with women who are not related, especially those with whom men have sexual relationships, considered masculine, and in case of sexual relationships, considered a basic requirement for manhood (now defined as "straighthood" and equated with "Heterosexuality).
Desire to have contact with women	Even the desire to have a contact with a woman, whether sexual, emotional or social is considered feminine.	Even the desire to have a contact with women apart from vaginal intercourse -- whether it is sexual, emotional or social, is considered feminine.	Even the desire to have a contact with women, of any kind, especially a contact which is sexual, emotional and social at the sametime, considered to be the essence of manhood (the desire being given the name of "heterosexuality"). This, even if the man is impotent or cannot reproduce.
Sexual contact with men	Sex with men, along with emotional bonding considered the essence of manhood. This includes receptive anal sex, which is considered a highly masculinising activity, and hence given to adolescent as part of initiation rite into manhood. Receptive anal sex considered to have the power to remove the feminine influences acquired by male adolescents during their stay in the female group with their mothers.	Sexual and romantic bonds between men considered the essence of manhood -- in stage I, by the formal society as well as men's spaces, and in stage II (post religion in the middle ages), only by the men's spaces. However, receptive anal sex considered extremely feminine, enough to classify a male as third gender, instead of 'man'.	Even the desire to have sex with another man, leave alone the act, and in fact harbouring any erotic feelings for a man is considered extremely feminine, enough to classify the male as "Third gender" (gay/ homosexual) and not a man (straight). No difference is made between masculine male's sexual desire for men and a feminine male's sexual desire for men. No difference is also made between the penetrator and the penetrated. Both are adjudged equally feminine by the formal society. Although, men's spaces, wherever they exist, still consider the former to be 'straight' and the latter to be 'gay'. However, there are hardly any men's spaces left after their heterosexualisation.
Emotional and romantic bonds between men	Emotional and Romantic bonds between masculine males considered the essence of manhood	Emotional and Romantic bonds between masculine males considered the essence of manhood in stage I, but in stage II, only emotional bonds between men considered so in the formal society; while romantic bonds between masculine men go underground and portrayed by the society as non-existent..	Emotional and romantic bonds between men considered extremely feminine, the ultimate unmanly act that immediately, as per the mechanisms constructed in the society, debars the man from manhood (straighthood) and classifies him as third gender (gay).
Desire to form emotional and romantic bond between men	Desire to form emotional/ romantic bond between men considered to be an integral part of manhood that all men are born with.	Desire to form emotional/ romantic bond between men considered to be an integral part of manhood that all men are born with, by both the formal as well as the men's spaces, in both stages I and II. In stage II, the formal society considers it a desire which although masculine, should nevertheless be controlled either because of religious beliefs or to be a man of 'character'.	The very desire to form emotional/ romantic bond with another man considered feminine/ unmanly. Men (i.e. straight men) are not supposed to have this desire. Only feminine gendered males (i.e. third sex/ gays) are supposed to have this desire. The desire becomes so important that it is institutionalised into one of the most basic human identities, replacing the original gender identities, and the entire society is now segregated on the basis of this desire, between "heterosexual" and "homosexual".
Being part of men's group/ spaces	Manhood is basically about getting the membership of the men's group/ spaces. Male femininity belongs in the Third gender group.	Manhood is basically about getting the membership of the men's group, although, the group's terms and conditions are to a great extent maneuvered by the formal society, if not directly controlled by them. The final conditions of manhood is a compromise between that arbitrarily fixed by the formal society and the natural manhood as practiced by men's spaces.	The very desire to be part of a group, especially men's group considered to be unmanly and feminine, although not quite attracting a classification as third sex unless it incorporates same-sex sexual/ romantic bonds. Men are supposed to be independent, individualistic people. In fact, men are supposed to like to lead most of their lives in mixed sex (heterosexual) groups. Anyone who acknowledges a dislike for this becomes suspect as to his 'manhood', and has to take extra pains to prove he is not interested in men sexually.