Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Mocking as a weapon against men!
Mocking and thus shaming is an extremely effective weapon as far as men are concerned in denyning male traits a social space.
throwing any bond that comes in the way of promoting heterosexuality out of the way!
- the heterosexual society seeks to demean and thus deny space to any human bond that comes between heterosexual realtionships. And apart from male to male bonds the other bonds that it targets include the bond between the mother and adult son. It continuously mocks men older than 18 as 'feminine' who show attachment to their mother, or even if they just stay with their parents. A man is supposed to move out and live with a girlfriend or wife if he is to be respected as a man.
that's fake manhood!
- The heterosexual societies are enculcating a false brand of manhood where submitting sexually to women is accepted as a part of manhood --- even encouraged in men, and where acknowledging any kind of openness to sexuality from men is seen as 'third sex' (called queer or homosexual in the west).
WESTERN SCIENCE TURNING HUMAN SEXUALITY UPSIDE DOWN
It is ironical that when through nature, it is the human male which is primarily and universally geared sexually towards other men, the western heterosexual society propagates – through the abuse of science -- that male-male sexual desire is rare and it is the female-female sexual desire which is more common.
'homophobia' is a put-on trait
Contrary to what the western society propagates, trains and expects its men to do, under normal circumstances men do not repel at the thought of another man making a pass at them...... nor do they turn hostile to him. On the contrary the position of a man goes several notches up if he is thought to be open about male-male sexual bonds and he becomes a highly sought after person by other men hoping to hit it out with him.
However, in a partly heterosexualised society like India --- due to its British history, men are expected at the formal level to at least show some kind of repulsion if a man makes a pass at them. However, men do not pay heed to this 'sexual role' unless and until they risk being exposed or 'blamed' for it too. This is why men do a lot of same-sex things but they don't talk about it. And as long as it is not talked about men don't show repulsion --- rather they welcome it.
However, in a partly heterosexualised society like India --- due to its British history, men are expected at the formal level to at least show some kind of repulsion if a man makes a pass at them. However, men do not pay heed to this 'sexual role' unless and until they risk being exposed or 'blamed' for it too. This is why men do a lot of same-sex things but they don't talk about it. And as long as it is not talked about men don't show repulsion --- rather they welcome it.
In a semi-heterosexual society --- which is a cross between a traditional society and a heterosexual society (like modern India) ----- if a masculine gendered attractive male is thought of being open about same-sex needs, his value amongst his peers and men's space in general shoots considerably up. However, since there is hostility in the formal social sphere, the man must not be open about his same-sex needs........ this value goes down if things come out in the open.
The heterosexual society, on the other hand artificially creates such intense hostility in the men's space itself (and not only in the formal social space) around same-sex needs that the value of any man who shows even the remotest possibility of same-sex attraction goes steepely down. Actually, there are no men's space really to talk of in a heterosexual society. And the heterosexual space is dominated by sexually dominant women, and heterosexualised men who make sure that continuous hostility is maintained against same-sex needs in these spaces.
The heterosexual society, on the other hand artificially creates such intense hostility in the men's space itself (and not only in the formal social space) around same-sex needs that the value of any man who shows even the remotest possibility of same-sex attraction goes steepely down. Actually, there are no men's space really to talk of in a heterosexual society. And the heterosexual space is dominated by sexually dominant women, and heterosexualised men who make sure that continuous hostility is maintained against same-sex needs in these spaces.
They train men to be hypocrites and to lead double lives.
- They show men getting so emotional for women and desiring them all the time on tv, popular culture etc. Almost every song celebrates man's love for women, every serial and movie depicts men falling in love with and craving women, laying their hearts out before them, embracing them, crying before them........ as if this is a universal, majority male feature........
whereas the truth is that very few men really care for it --- especially the emotional part. Very few men want to bond with women...... they all marry of course and claim to be grossly interested in dating women, however, that is because they have to. Just because they are married doesn't mean that they want to be with women. And neither just because they talk all the time about girls. That is again something they have to do. That is what the intense race for manhood and the politics of social manhood makes them do.
This is what a volunteer of YAAR once so aptly said, "I was born a completely normal male, but the society artificially made the essence of me into an 'abnormality' to suit its designs....... so that I have to completely destroy or hide myself in order to survive.
The rest of the men do it to the extent that they carry this male essence."
whereas the truth is that very few men really care for it --- especially the emotional part. Very few men want to bond with women...... they all marry of course and claim to be grossly interested in dating women, however, that is because they have to. Just because they are married doesn't mean that they want to be with women. And neither just because they talk all the time about girls. That is again something they have to do. That is what the intense race for manhood and the politics of social manhood makes them do.
This is what a volunteer of YAAR once so aptly said, "I was born a completely normal male, but the society artificially made the essence of me into an 'abnormality' to suit its designs....... so that I have to completely destroy or hide myself in order to survive.
The rest of the men do it to the extent that they carry this male essence."
Hypocrisy about same-sex needs:
Hypocrisy about same-sex needs:
It is not that men are not aware that all men have a sexual need for men. But they have been trained to think its a despicable thing that needs to be reigned in. AND they realise that the social isolation from the male gender hinges on acknowledgement of this desire and (surprisingly) not merely upon having it -- nor even upon indulging in it if it is done without acknowledging the sexual need ----- either quietly or under certain socially approved excuses, e.g. as part of hazing/ ragging, in an absence of girls, being drunk (and thus losing inhibitions), absolute power over vulnerable men (e.g. prisoners of war), and in limited ways in medical situations, including where it is not really needed -- e.g. physical examination of recruits where they are made to unnecessarily strip.
Not surprisingly when a man (in western parlance a straight man) wants to join sexually with another man even when he shares a strong mutual desire with him, he still needs an excuse to have sex with him --- and one of the options is to resort to a drinking binge with him --- because it is a socially approved excuse. In any case, any such sexual encounter will be preceded by a lot of talk about 'girls' to fulfill the social obligation of camouflaging that obvious sexuality between two men. And then they have sex under the excuse that now they are sexually aroused and since there is no girl, they must have sex with each other (which in most cases doesn't involve anal/ oral but mutual masturbation), since it is better than having sex with oneself. Of course, the most common way is that after you have talked about girls before sleeping together, one masturbates the other in the middle of the night, in complete darkness, and noone ever says a word about it ----- even in the most vulnerable moment of orgasm they both keep a straight face ----- and go about their business like the incident never happened.
Thus the sanctity of the social mechansims, towards which men have been made so deeply loyal, has been maintained, and the society goes about its business of claiming that sexual desire of a man for another man is something that just cannot happen....... and that its only when there is a woman inside the man that he starts to desire another man. All men know this is not true, but they still uphold this notion in public and private because of their loyalty to these mechanisms.
Two (straight) men with strong sexual desire for each other, who are emotionally extremely attached to each other ----- would still go through this elaborate procedure to camouflage their sexual desire, so that their same sex desires are not acknowledged --- even when no one else is watching. Such is the degree and depth of control that social mechanisms of oppression have over men. There are two factors that are working over men here:
- fear: i.e. the fear of crossing the 'line' and losing 'manhood' (straighthood in western parlance), in one's own eyes.
- Strong but misplaced sense of loyalty to these mechanisms and the boundaries created by it.
In order to defeat these mechanisms of oppression, men should not only reject the 'homosexual' label, but also the very concept of 'homosexuality' that treacherously assumes that men are basically heterosexual ..... and not only that, they also have a repulsion for same-sex intimacy....... and that same-sex desires are a minority....... and more significantly, that they constitute a different gender (called third sex in traditional societies and renamed as a sexual category -- 'homosexual' --- in heterosexual societies)..
It is not that men are not aware that all men have a sexual need for men. But they have been trained to think its a despicable thing that needs to be reigned in. AND they realise that the social isolation from the male gender hinges on acknowledgement of this desire and (surprisingly) not merely upon having it -- nor even upon indulging in it if it is done without acknowledging the sexual need ----- either quietly or under certain socially approved excuses, e.g. as part of hazing/ ragging, in an absence of girls, being drunk (and thus losing inhibitions), absolute power over vulnerable men (e.g. prisoners of war), and in limited ways in medical situations, including where it is not really needed -- e.g. physical examination of recruits where they are made to unnecessarily strip.
Not surprisingly when a man (in western parlance a straight man) wants to join sexually with another man even when he shares a strong mutual desire with him, he still needs an excuse to have sex with him --- and one of the options is to resort to a drinking binge with him --- because it is a socially approved excuse. In any case, any such sexual encounter will be preceded by a lot of talk about 'girls' to fulfill the social obligation of camouflaging that obvious sexuality between two men. And then they have sex under the excuse that now they are sexually aroused and since there is no girl, they must have sex with each other (which in most cases doesn't involve anal/ oral but mutual masturbation), since it is better than having sex with oneself. Of course, the most common way is that after you have talked about girls before sleeping together, one masturbates the other in the middle of the night, in complete darkness, and noone ever says a word about it ----- even in the most vulnerable moment of orgasm they both keep a straight face ----- and go about their business like the incident never happened.
Thus the sanctity of the social mechansims, towards which men have been made so deeply loyal, has been maintained, and the society goes about its business of claiming that sexual desire of a man for another man is something that just cannot happen....... and that its only when there is a woman inside the man that he starts to desire another man. All men know this is not true, but they still uphold this notion in public and private because of their loyalty to these mechanisms.
Two (straight) men with strong sexual desire for each other, who are emotionally extremely attached to each other ----- would still go through this elaborate procedure to camouflage their sexual desire, so that their same sex desires are not acknowledged --- even when no one else is watching. Such is the degree and depth of control that social mechanisms of oppression have over men. There are two factors that are working over men here:
- fear: i.e. the fear of crossing the 'line' and losing 'manhood' (straighthood in western parlance), in one's own eyes.
- Strong but misplaced sense of loyalty to these mechanisms and the boundaries created by it.
In order to defeat these mechanisms of oppression, men should not only reject the 'homosexual' label, but also the very concept of 'homosexuality' that treacherously assumes that men are basically heterosexual ..... and not only that, they also have a repulsion for same-sex intimacy....... and that same-sex desires are a minority....... and more significantly, that they constitute a different gender (called third sex in traditional societies and renamed as a sexual category -- 'homosexual' --- in heterosexual societies)..
Are we birds or mammals?
Humans are mammals but are forced to live like birds and breed like insects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)