The Chicago Blog
Publicity news from the University of Chicago Press including news tips, press releases, reviews, and intelligent commentary.
History's fundamental lesson warns those who are comfortable with contemporary social arrangements, as it reassures those who are oppressed by current practices: It hasn't always been like this, and isn't likely to stay this way forever. This lesson is certainly true when it comes to the way that American men today are inclined and allowed to express their affection for each other—whether that affection involves romance, sexual longing, or just profound fondness.
from the book cover
Ang Lee's magnificent film Brokeback Mountain is the sad story of two Wyoming ranch hands whose society severely inhibits their twenty-year-long affectionate and sexual relationship. They express their mutual attraction only when utterly alone in the wilderness, at huge expense to their emotional lives and also their relationships with women. Yet Brokeback Mountain may also be instructively seen as a movie that raises disturbing issues about the ways that all American men feel about the appropriate ways to express their fondness for each other, whether or not that fondness is accompanied by sexual desire. Our culture still so scorns sexual desire between two men that there is a common fear that such desire just might accompany any fondness, as well as a fear that other people might jump to conclusions about the implications of two men's attraction to each other.
Homophobia afflicts all males in our society, both those who genuinely are sexually attracted to each other, like Ennis del Mar and Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain, as well as those whose love or simple affection for each other has no sexual dimension to it. For one man to tell another he loves him, some joking around often trivializes the expression, with all the depth of a commercial for Bud Light; if two men embrace, a reassuring punch is often part of the action. Simply because they are men, gay men—in spite of being sexually drawn to each other—may often be no less free of inhibition in expressing affection than are their straight brothers.
As a historian who has studied the shifting history of American men's various sorts of relationships with each other, I think it is critical to note that Brokeback Mountain's Ennis and Jack were nineteen in 1963, the year they met. (So was I coincidentally.) They were shaped by the culture of 1950s America, a culture that was unusually hostile to male intimacy, as I argue in Picturing Men.
When most American boys learned to fear and despise any suggestion of queerness in themselves, Ennis received a peculiarly graphic lesson: His father made it a point to show his nine-year-old son the sexually mutilated corpse of a rancher whose relationship with the man with whom he shared a home had bothered his neighbors. Jack's dream for himself and Ennis—simply to live together in peace—was a modest one, in contrast to the reasonable dreams of men today who want to marry each other. Yet, living when they did, Ennis could only warn Jack that if their feelings for each other were ever to "grab on to us again in the wrong place, wrong time, we'll be dead." Their intimacy had to remain in the shadows, making Brokeback Mountain a tragic tale of unrealized potential.
Picturing Men shows a different world. The lost world of American men that I depict in my work was a time when men clearly were comfortable with each other, feeling free to physically express mutual affection for all to witness—not hidden away on a Brokeback Mountain, but in front of a camera, wholly without the coldness or the reassuringly exaggerated gestures that would come to mark photographs from a later time. Picturing Men does not argue that the lost world was in every way better than the world of men today, but does surely maintain that the earlier world was different, and that our understanding it, and the reasons for its demise, might improve men's relationships nowadays, with each other and with the women in their lives.
Picturing Men is based on my systematic scrutiny of thousands of everyday photographs of two or more American men together, from the dawn of photography before the Civil War until the early 1950s—both studio portraits as well as the snapshots that became common after the invention of roll film in 1888. The book displays well over a hundred representative images, showing men indoors and out, in homes, dorm rooms, and bunk houses, at the beach and in the work place, soldiers, sailors, and civilians, camping, hunting, and posing for athletic team portraits. The ways men posed with each other changed markedly over the time my book surveys, and my interpretation of those changes leads me to an interpretation of drastic changes in the quality of men's various relationships with each other over a century of American history.
ibson_fig_xiiAs cultural evidence, photographs document certain things, yet are wholly silent about others. In looking at this photograph taken around 1915, we see two men doing something we rarely observe nowadays. I refer not simply to their pose, but to the fact that they had their portrait taken together in a photographer's studio, a ritual once widespread among American men but extremely rare today. Many observers may confidently think they see evidence of romance and a likely sexual relationship in this photograph, but that judgment reveals something only about the observer, not the subjects. Without an inscription, we can actually discern nothing from this image regarding a matter that has come to obsess us about relationships: whether the parties are having sex with each other.
What we do observe in this photograph—and in countless others—is male intimacy, two men who were clearly so comfortable with each other that they felt no need to clown around, to reassure themselves and anyone who would see their photograph that nothing culturally scorned was being displayed. Another of history's critical lessons is that change always brings both gain and loss. Picturing Men maintains that certain losses that American men have experienced in their relationships with each other have been severe. It is not simply fictional ranch hands, and not just men sexually drawn to each other, whose lives today are full of unrealized potential.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow thanks for writing this book. This is an issue that so needs to be talked about. I've noticed this also how men are so afraid of each other. It's cultural so we see every one else acting in the same way and we think it's a normal thing but it's actualy not a normal thing. It's extremely abnormal and disfunctional.
Posted by: God loves you [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 29, 2007 05:11 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ibson,
It's a wonderful book no doubt, but at the same time a reminder of the unfortunate state in which men are today, that this book has been featured and reviewed under the gay and lesbian section -- the very concept that has been the greatest tool in wiping off all kinds of open, proud affection for each other from the Western men.
It is primarily because of the concept of sexual orientation, which portrays man's sexual desire for men as straight mainstream, while clubs masculine male desire for men together with those of the feminine/ transgendered/ queer / third sex through ill-conceived and oppressive definitions. It can be easily shown through a study of men and manhood through the history, that men will avoid like hell what is socially ascribed to the third sex. In the beginning before the concept of 'sexual orientation' came, only receptive anal sex was seen as 'unmanly' thing of the third sex. A masculine male's affection for another man was seen as perfectly normal, and sexual affection was seen as a macho vice. After this concept (of 'homosexuality' )was fully established now showing bodily or sexual affection towards men implied that you're not on e of the 'real' (read straight) men but one of them -- the queers/ third gender/mollies/ effeminate/ gays. And this is why men have disowned their sexual need for men. And they'll never accept it again, till the concept of gay/homosexuality/sexual orientation that seeks to isolate them from the men's community into what is clearly the third sex community (even if its not officially defined so) is done away with.
Unfortunately, now this concept is being thrust upon societies like India, where men's spaces and men's affinity is very strong. Soon it will be history when the gay movement is given power and place in the society, with its misleading classification of the society. Unless, we decide to expose what is wrong with sexual orientation.
regards,
Please see:
http://sexual-orientation-is-oppressive.blogspot.com/
http://heterosexualisationofsociety.blogspot.com/
Aug 3, 2008
Homosexuality is an invalid concept
Not only is the word 'homosexuality' not found in any of the pre-modern civilisations even in the west, there has not been even a concept anywhere near it. There are several flaws not only in the concept of 'homosexuality' but in that of 'sexual orientation' itself. In this article we try to pinpoint the exact reasons why the concept of homosexuality is invalid.
(v) The term is supposed to define a man's sexuality/ sexual preferences, in terms of what is the (outer) sex of his sexual partner.
The politics of who is the same-sex and who is opposite:
SEXUAL ORIENTATION ITSELF IS AN INVALID CONCEPT!
The problem with the definitions provided by the heterosexual society and its science is that........
...... they create definitions based on how they would want the society to look, without any consideration for how people really are.......
...... and then force people to fit into them by bending and breaking them.
People are simple. They will believe in the definitions that come from a position of authority without challenging them. In any case as individuals they don't have the power to challenge them, and the definitions make sure that they remain powerless and isolated to do so.
And the thing about the concept of sexual orientation is that western(ized) people don't have the knowledge to challenge these definitions, because the western culture just does not recognize gender as a valid and distinct human trait, so westerners lack the ability to consciously consider it as a key player in the whole issue of sexuality.
And then what happens is a great distortion of natural traits and needs of people, of the kind that happens in the west (in India too, but only to a lesser extent). Thus e.g., when 'straight' (whose real meaning is masculine gendered males who are socially accepted as 'men') is defined as 'heterosexual', then the majority of men will bend and break themselves to be heterosexual. The fault lies totally with the definitions which are invented and forced from the top.
And likewise, since (male) homosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction of a male for another male, cleverly ignoring the important differences of gender (----- on the assumption that it is the desire itself which forms feminine) gender in males, and this definition is primarily built on the Hijra/eunuch/ faggot space/ trait, then straight identified men will shirk their sexual need for men like anything......... because although the formal definitions just talk about 'male sexual desire for men', in reality it is actually used for the 'third sex' which has (apart from being a denigrated feminine gendered male space) been the space for men banished from the men's community, since the ancient times.
While at the practical level feminine gender and receptive anal/ oral sex is the deciding factor between who will fit into 'homosexuality' and who 'into' straight......
..... at the formal level the difference is "exclusive sexual interest in men".
Do you know what that means? It exposes the motives of the vested interest group in devising the concept of homosexuality. It exposes their conspiracy very clearly.
It is not really "liking men" which is the problem here. The deciding factor is ------ WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO IT TO A WOMAN?
It is not liking men which makes you different from straight men (because most straight men like men) and force you in the homosexual space. It is not doing it with women that does.
And once you understand that you will also begin to see how this exactly tallies with the mechanisms of male oppression built thousands of years ago. There is a clear-cut non-breaking pattern in this conspiracy running during all these ages ----- it says:
Isolate the man who refuses to have sex with a woman (initially in order to reproduce) and debar him from manhood. Banish him into the fringes of the society.
Societies have sought to do this in order to force men with women, ever since these mechanisms were developed in order make the marriage institution viable. Because like in (mammalian) nature very few men had sex willingly with women in any reproductive season, unless forced, because they were too busy with their male bonds.
This is what created a strong vested interest over the ages, which have time and time again sought to consolidate their powers by seeking to isolate any kind of male-to-male bonds from the mainstream. They were unsuccessful because male spaces were very strong in the past. Religion was the first major defeat that men suffered at the hands of these vested interests. The other major and probably the final defeat came with industrialization, which gave these vested interests the power to destroy completely the male-spaces and heterosexualise them.
Science was abused (like religion) to give the vested interest group a tool to isolate male-male sexuality in a banished and denigrated third-sex space. This tool was called 'homosexuality'. This is the first time that the straight population was totally forced to give up male-male sexuality. Before that male-male sexuality had thrived for 2000 years quietly in mainstream (straight) male spaces, under the disguise and protection of male solidarity. And this is the story IN the west.
The vested interest group also finally managed to make male-female sexual desire itself the criteria for new manhood and converted this privilege into a powerful 'heterosexual' identity. Indeed they defined straight (or the status of being 'real regular/ mainstream/ masculine gendered men) itself as "heterosexuality'. Whereas earlier it was male-female sex and not sexual desire which made men eligible for social manhood. So you could absolutely disdain women, but if you married and just had enough sex to reproduce, you were then a 'man'. Today you're a man only if you have a sexual desire for women.
And because sexual desire was never a criteria for granting or denying manhood there was never ever a concept of 'sexuality'.
The objection to the word and concept of 'homosexuality' is not only about its definition. There are at least the following 7 serious drawbacks with the concept of 'homosexuality':
1. DEFINITION:
Incomplete definition:
(i) It does not take into account the important human facet of 'gender'. 'Gender' is defined as the inner male or female, irrespective of one's outer sex.
(ii) This silence on gender leaves enough room for its underhand manipulation and further distortion of meaning during usage. (e.g. gay = feminine, thus liking men = feminine).
(iii) It does not make any difference between 'sexual behavior' and 'actual sexual needs'. The two can be quite different in case of men.
(iv) People and their feelings/ needs need to be defined and classified on the basis of their nature, not on the whims and fancies of a few with vested interests.
1. DEFINITION:
Incomplete definition:
(i) It does not take into account the important human facet of 'gender'. 'Gender' is defined as the inner male or female, irrespective of one's outer sex.
(ii) This silence on gender leaves enough room for its underhand manipulation and further distortion of meaning during usage. (e.g. gay = feminine, thus liking men = feminine).
(iii) It does not make any difference between 'sexual behavior' and 'actual sexual needs'. The two can be quite different in case of men.
(iv) People and their feelings/ needs need to be defined and classified on the basis of their nature, not on the whims and fancies of a few with vested interests.
(v) The term is supposed to define a man's sexuality/ sexual preferences, in terms of what is the (outer) sex of his sexual partner.
The politics of who is the same-sex and who is opposite:
To an individual, what would suffice would be to say that he is a man attracted to another man. Thus I'm a 'mansexual' ought to make sense.
As an individual, a man's sexuality is not figured to judge who is the 'same' as him and then respond sexually to him. And individual responds to the masculine gendered man or feminine gendered male or a woman or both/ all.
But to use the word 'homo' or 'hetero' brings in the judgement of the society as to who it considers to be the same as me and who it doesn't. That is problematic and it reveals the real motives of the society. And this is another place where gender is manipulated at the back.
The society does not really want to help me by defining my sexuality but rather it is defining it to see whether I'm liking the same or the opposite, so they can isolate me.
In fact the basic purpose is to see who is not liking women. Therefore, whereas they make a distinction between masculine men who like women and feminine males who like women, they don't make a distinction between masculine men who like men and feminine males who like men because the society is not bothered about our differences.
For the isolation purpose it suffices it to say that these males are not interested in women. They are given a common label and shoved in a common space. As long as you don't like the opposite sex, you're all the 'same'.
(vi) And the idea of defining my sexuality in terms of whether the outer sex of the partner I desire is the same as my outer sex is rather far fetched. What difference should it make to the society? There are enough babies even if I don't make one, and if I must make babies, I can make it whether or not I desire women.
2. MOTIVES:
A study of manhood from its historical perspective makes it clear that the vested interests have, ever since they became powerful, tried to isolate men's sexual need for men from the men's community as a disqualification for manhood, and into the denigrated 'third sex' group.
They were only partly successful, as male-only groups were very strong and they held on to male-male sexual bonds amongst masculine gendered men. Therefore, the vested interests could only isolate receptive anal/ oral sex
It is not difficult to see that the concept of 'homosexuality' is an extension of the same age-old conspiracy, which the vested interests could finally succeed in implementing, with the powers they obtained from industrialization and the institution of science.
Otherwise, when every man has a sexual need for men, there is no sense in segregating some men in another category, based on their openness about same-sex needs.
3. ORIGIN/ HISTORY:
(a) The term 'homosexuality' was coined for a medical/ clinical condition, on the assumption that liking a man by a male was a pathological condition. Of course the underlying idea was that almost all men have exclusive feelings for women, which is just not true.
(b) There were many factors that this concept of 'disease' was associated with….. they were the symptoms of this disease so to speak. E.g. it was associated with cross-dressing, transgenderism, desire for receptive anal/oral sex, psychological disorder, etc.
This served as the basis for the proposition that males who like men are different from males who like women, which is the basic presumption behind the term 'homosexuality' (or 'sexual orientation).
(c) Therefore, the term was originally coined for the half-males/half-females of the western world which were known as mollies and gays. (gay was earlier used for a person of loose moral character). How can you build a positive identity/ concept on such negativity?
(d) Thus the concept of sexual desire between men, in the heterosexual society was built upon the earlier extremely denigrated (especially for men) 'third sex' identity which had been there since time immemorial --- however never representing sexual desire between men as such (but only feminine male's sexual desire for men ----- which was considered 'heterosexual', i.e. between opposites, and not the 'same' as the western definition claims ------ and it specifically included only receptive anal/ oral sex particularly of the promiscuous and exclusive kind).
Earlier, sexuality between men had survived behind the scenes for two thousand years, under men's solidarity (inspite of being persecuted by society/ religion in the formal space), before the usage of the term 'homosexual' became popular, and used along with the heterosexualisation to isolate it and drive it out from men's spaces. The very use of the term 'homosexuality suggests that such an attraction is 'different' and so is the person having it ------ and thus paves the way for the man's exclusion from the mainstream men's world. When all that a straight (masculine) man really cares for is to be the 'same' as other straight (masculine) men.
Straight men are not individualistic. They are extremely community oriented (primarily towards the masculine male community)......(although, they may become individualistic if broken from the masculine male community, like many masculine men burdened with the homosexual identity do). Straight men just detest to be singled out. They go to great lengths to 'prove' that they are just like the other straight men. That is another reason why 'peer pressure' plays such an important role in a man's life.
The concept of 'homosexuality' insinuates that liking men will make them 'different' and isolate them from their commnity.
4. ASSUMPTION / FOUNDATION
The term and the concept of 'homosexuality' is based upon several wrong and misleading concepts, e.g.:
(1) that the majority of men have no sexual need for men.
(2) That it is possible to differentiate between those who have a sexual need for men from those who have a sexual need for women.
(3) That male sexual need for women is the same as 'masculinity' while male sexual need for men is the same as 'femininity' in males. This is the premise for terming the heterosexual identity as 'straight' and the 'homosexual' identity as 'queer' or 'gay'.
(4) That the 'claimed' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do hide their sexual behavior behind masks.
(5) That even the 'actual' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do behave contrary to their real feelings and needs. (because the need for social manhood is far greater than their sexual needs, which are already weakened by social conditioning).
(6) That there are no social pressures that work on men to condition and force them to like women and hate male-eroticism.
5. USAGE
Because the very concept of 'homosexuality' is impractical, and based on mischievous motives, its usage is quite contrary to how the word is defined ----- for people who define themselves as 'homosexuals', for the straights and for the society at large. Even those who have coined the definitions (the institution of science) use the term quite differently than the actual definition.
The actual usage has several hidden and obvious baggages which are clearly not mentioned in the stated dictionary definition. This hiding of important factors associated with the concept of homosexuality, is crucial for the forces of heterosexualisation to maintain their conspiracies.
(1) Homosexuality is in practical sense used (because of its history, origin, practicality and motives) only for anal/ oral sex between men which is considered to be the same as male transvestitism.
To take 2 examples, in India the law against anal/ oral intercourse (which is equally applicable to male-female couples) is known as the "law against homosexuality", when most people who like men do not have to do anything with anal/oral sex.
The second example is that the religious injunction against anal sex between men is known as the injunction against 'homosexuality' even by the academic/ scientific world (when there was no such concept as sexual desire for men existing as a separate entity in those days), and neither Christianity nor Islam talk about love or sex between men per se.
It is ironic that the academic world gets away with this blatant misuse of terms and their stated definitions that they themselves have created. That they can get away with such fallacies says a lot about the credibility of these institutions.
(2) If we look at it practically, even in the heterosexual society, most males who relate with the homosexual identity are feminine gendered or fixated on receptive anal/ oral sex and most often both. Most men on the other hand prefer to stay with the 'straight' label, while many others who join the 'gay' identity are fooled by the definitions.
Thus the usage in this regard is not really incorrect, except that the definition claims to represent all male sexuality for men.
(3) While the definition doesn't talk anything about the gender angle, in usage 'homosexuality' is widely associated with male femininity. So much so that the equivalent terms for 'homosexual' are faggot, pansy, queer, gay, fruit, and so on.
Like someone discussing this issue on a 'straight-acting', 'gay' site once said, "the feminine gays are those who flaunt their sexuality on their sleeves."
Many Indian men have no idea before they come to the gay community that there is a strong feminine aspect to it. They are shocked to find that 'gay' parties and events are populated by Hijras and cross-dressers.
The definitions are quiet on this gender connection and thus they are built to mislead. What good are definitions that don't reflect the reality!
(4) While the definition only says "homosexual is a man attracted to a man", the actual usage goes more like: "a man who openly likes men", since secretly (almost) all men like men. And this further highlights the conspiracy. That the society wants to punish those who dare to be open about their same-sex needs.
(6) Because of the faults in definition, history, origin, assumptions and usage, sexuality between men and transgenderism are discussed ----- both at the scholarly/ scientific level and at the layman level ----- at the same breadth as if the two issues are one and the same.
e.g., consider this scholarly statement: "homosexuality was accepted in the Indian tribes of America. They had berdaches who were men who openly lived as women".
6. ABUSE AND MANIPULATION
This playing on the side with the all important human trait of gender makes way for large scale manipulation by various social institutions serving the forces of heterosexualisation.
1.) e.g. While both masculine gendered and feminine gendered males who like men are considered the "same", for the 'homosexual' label, .......... ........feminine gendered males who like women are not included in the 'heterosexual' label. They are shunted together with the gays as 'transsexuals'/ transgendered. Only masculine gendered guys who like women can be 'straight'. Thus there is both double standards, and an underhand play on 'gender' even when it is not formally recognized.
This leads to a lot of manipulation of facts. E.g. Science compares the feminine gendered 'homosexuals' with the masculine gendered 'heterosexuals' but on paper they are only acknowledged as 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' with no reference to their gender. Any difference in their biology that should actually be because of the gender, is easily ascribed to 'sexuality'. This also exposes another angle of the conspiracy ----- which is also age-old: To represent men's need for men as feminine, so that men are denied manhood on its basis, and the majority of men (straights) continue to suppress their own sexual need for men. Thus science is abused to give its stamp to the propaganda that 'men who like men are a different species of men and are feminine".
7. RESULT/ CONSEQUENCES:
Thousands of years of persecution of male sexual need for men (which eventually led to the emergence of 'sexual attraction towards men' becoming a distinct concept) ----- by the end of middle ages made men indulge in such bonds only within the safety of men's spaces. The men's spaces have to be very strong for this purpose, which ensures that heterosexual vested interests don't get strong in it.
Like mentioned before, social manhood is the most important factor that decides the life course of a man. And men will only indulge in that much of their sexual need for men and only in that manner as will not harm their social manhood or make them weak in the race for manhood, which is basically a survival issue for men. They want to play absolutely safe.
In the men's spaces, men can become quite open about their same sex needs without their manhood being threatened at all. But in formal spaces and where there are women/ third sex, men must put on their masks of 'heterosexuality' (sic). It was the same in middle ages, as it is now in a heterosexual society.
The forces of heterosexualisation could figure out the weakness of men's bonds flourishing secretly in men only spaces. These prime weaknesses were:
1. The key is to destroy men's spaces: You induce even one woman in the male space, and suddenly all that male-sexual bonding or that open acceptance/ indulgence of male-male desire evaporates into thin air. Suddenly, everyone puts on a mask, as if there never was such a need amongst men at all.
Case Study:
As an individual, a man's sexuality is not figured to judge who is the 'same' as him and then respond sexually to him. And individual responds to the masculine gendered man or feminine gendered male or a woman or both/ all.
But to use the word 'homo' or 'hetero' brings in the judgement of the society as to who it considers to be the same as me and who it doesn't. That is problematic and it reveals the real motives of the society. And this is another place where gender is manipulated at the back.
The society does not really want to help me by defining my sexuality but rather it is defining it to see whether I'm liking the same or the opposite, so they can isolate me.
In fact the basic purpose is to see who is not liking women. Therefore, whereas they make a distinction between masculine men who like women and feminine males who like women, they don't make a distinction between masculine men who like men and feminine males who like men because the society is not bothered about our differences.
For the isolation purpose it suffices it to say that these males are not interested in women. They are given a common label and shoved in a common space. As long as you don't like the opposite sex, you're all the 'same'.
(vi) And the idea of defining my sexuality in terms of whether the outer sex of the partner I desire is the same as my outer sex is rather far fetched. What difference should it make to the society? There are enough babies even if I don't make one, and if I must make babies, I can make it whether or not I desire women.
2. MOTIVES:
A study of manhood from its historical perspective makes it clear that the vested interests have, ever since they became powerful, tried to isolate men's sexual need for men from the men's community as a disqualification for manhood, and into the denigrated 'third sex' group.
They were only partly successful, as male-only groups were very strong and they held on to male-male sexual bonds amongst masculine gendered men. Therefore, the vested interests could only isolate receptive anal/ oral sex
It is not difficult to see that the concept of 'homosexuality' is an extension of the same age-old conspiracy, which the vested interests could finally succeed in implementing, with the powers they obtained from industrialization and the institution of science.
Otherwise, when every man has a sexual need for men, there is no sense in segregating some men in another category, based on their openness about same-sex needs.
3. ORIGIN/ HISTORY:
(a) The term 'homosexuality' was coined for a medical/ clinical condition, on the assumption that liking a man by a male was a pathological condition. Of course the underlying idea was that almost all men have exclusive feelings for women, which is just not true.
(b) There were many factors that this concept of 'disease' was associated with….. they were the symptoms of this disease so to speak. E.g. it was associated with cross-dressing, transgenderism, desire for receptive anal/oral sex, psychological disorder, etc.
This served as the basis for the proposition that males who like men are different from males who like women, which is the basic presumption behind the term 'homosexuality' (or 'sexual orientation).
(c) Therefore, the term was originally coined for the half-males/half-females of the western world which were known as mollies and gays. (gay was earlier used for a person of loose moral character). How can you build a positive identity/ concept on such negativity?
(d) Thus the concept of sexual desire between men, in the heterosexual society was built upon the earlier extremely denigrated (especially for men) 'third sex' identity which had been there since time immemorial --- however never representing sexual desire between men as such (but only feminine male's sexual desire for men ----- which was considered 'heterosexual', i.e. between opposites, and not the 'same' as the western definition claims ------ and it specifically included only receptive anal/ oral sex particularly of the promiscuous and exclusive kind).
Earlier, sexuality between men had survived behind the scenes for two thousand years, under men's solidarity (inspite of being persecuted by society/ religion in the formal space), before the usage of the term 'homosexual' became popular, and used along with the heterosexualisation to isolate it and drive it out from men's spaces. The very use of the term 'homosexuality suggests that such an attraction is 'different' and so is the person having it ------ and thus paves the way for the man's exclusion from the mainstream men's world. When all that a straight (masculine) man really cares for is to be the 'same' as other straight (masculine) men.
Straight men are not individualistic. They are extremely community oriented (primarily towards the masculine male community)......(although, they may become individualistic if broken from the masculine male community, like many masculine men burdened with the homosexual identity do). Straight men just detest to be singled out. They go to great lengths to 'prove' that they are just like the other straight men. That is another reason why 'peer pressure' plays such an important role in a man's life.
The concept of 'homosexuality' insinuates that liking men will make them 'different' and isolate them from their commnity.
4. ASSUMPTION / FOUNDATION
The term and the concept of 'homosexuality' is based upon several wrong and misleading concepts, e.g.:
(1) that the majority of men have no sexual need for men.
(2) That it is possible to differentiate between those who have a sexual need for men from those who have a sexual need for women.
(3) That male sexual need for women is the same as 'masculinity' while male sexual need for men is the same as 'femininity' in males. This is the premise for terming the heterosexual identity as 'straight' and the 'homosexual' identity as 'queer' or 'gay'.
(4) That the 'claimed' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do hide their sexual behavior behind masks.
(5) That even the 'actual' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do behave contrary to their real feelings and needs. (because the need for social manhood is far greater than their sexual needs, which are already weakened by social conditioning).
(6) That there are no social pressures that work on men to condition and force them to like women and hate male-eroticism.
5. USAGE
Because the very concept of 'homosexuality' is impractical, and based on mischievous motives, its usage is quite contrary to how the word is defined ----- for people who define themselves as 'homosexuals', for the straights and for the society at large. Even those who have coined the definitions (the institution of science) use the term quite differently than the actual definition.
The actual usage has several hidden and obvious baggages which are clearly not mentioned in the stated dictionary definition. This hiding of important factors associated with the concept of homosexuality, is crucial for the forces of heterosexualisation to maintain their conspiracies.
(1) Homosexuality is in practical sense used (because of its history, origin, practicality and motives) only for anal/ oral sex between men which is considered to be the same as male transvestitism.
To take 2 examples, in India the law against anal/ oral intercourse (which is equally applicable to male-female couples) is known as the "law against homosexuality", when most people who like men do not have to do anything with anal/oral sex.
The second example is that the religious injunction against anal sex between men is known as the injunction against 'homosexuality' even by the academic/ scientific world (when there was no such concept as sexual desire for men existing as a separate entity in those days), and neither Christianity nor Islam talk about love or sex between men per se.
It is ironic that the academic world gets away with this blatant misuse of terms and their stated definitions that they themselves have created. That they can get away with such fallacies says a lot about the credibility of these institutions.
(2) If we look at it practically, even in the heterosexual society, most males who relate with the homosexual identity are feminine gendered or fixated on receptive anal/ oral sex and most often both. Most men on the other hand prefer to stay with the 'straight' label, while many others who join the 'gay' identity are fooled by the definitions.
Thus the usage in this regard is not really incorrect, except that the definition claims to represent all male sexuality for men.
(3) While the definition doesn't talk anything about the gender angle, in usage 'homosexuality' is widely associated with male femininity. So much so that the equivalent terms for 'homosexual' are faggot, pansy, queer, gay, fruit, and so on.
Like someone discussing this issue on a 'straight-acting', 'gay' site once said, "the feminine gays are those who flaunt their sexuality on their sleeves."
Many Indian men have no idea before they come to the gay community that there is a strong feminine aspect to it. They are shocked to find that 'gay' parties and events are populated by Hijras and cross-dressers.
The definitions are quiet on this gender connection and thus they are built to mislead. What good are definitions that don't reflect the reality!
(4) While the definition only says "homosexual is a man attracted to a man", the actual usage goes more like: "a man who openly likes men", since secretly (almost) all men like men. And this further highlights the conspiracy. That the society wants to punish those who dare to be open about their same-sex needs.
(6) Because of the faults in definition, history, origin, assumptions and usage, sexuality between men and transgenderism are discussed ----- both at the scholarly/ scientific level and at the layman level ----- at the same breadth as if the two issues are one and the same.
e.g., consider this scholarly statement: "homosexuality was accepted in the Indian tribes of America. They had berdaches who were men who openly lived as women".
6. ABUSE AND MANIPULATION
This playing on the side with the all important human trait of gender makes way for large scale manipulation by various social institutions serving the forces of heterosexualisation.
1.) e.g. While both masculine gendered and feminine gendered males who like men are considered the "same", for the 'homosexual' label, .......... ........feminine gendered males who like women are not included in the 'heterosexual' label. They are shunted together with the gays as 'transsexuals'/ transgendered. Only masculine gendered guys who like women can be 'straight'. Thus there is both double standards, and an underhand play on 'gender' even when it is not formally recognized.
This leads to a lot of manipulation of facts. E.g. Science compares the feminine gendered 'homosexuals' with the masculine gendered 'heterosexuals' but on paper they are only acknowledged as 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' with no reference to their gender. Any difference in their biology that should actually be because of the gender, is easily ascribed to 'sexuality'. This also exposes another angle of the conspiracy ----- which is also age-old: To represent men's need for men as feminine, so that men are denied manhood on its basis, and the majority of men (straights) continue to suppress their own sexual need for men. Thus science is abused to give its stamp to the propaganda that 'men who like men are a different species of men and are feminine".
7. RESULT/ CONSEQUENCES:
Thousands of years of persecution of male sexual need for men (which eventually led to the emergence of 'sexual attraction towards men' becoming a distinct concept) ----- by the end of middle ages made men indulge in such bonds only within the safety of men's spaces. The men's spaces have to be very strong for this purpose, which ensures that heterosexual vested interests don't get strong in it.
Like mentioned before, social manhood is the most important factor that decides the life course of a man. And men will only indulge in that much of their sexual need for men and only in that manner as will not harm their social manhood or make them weak in the race for manhood, which is basically a survival issue for men. They want to play absolutely safe.
In the men's spaces, men can become quite open about their same sex needs without their manhood being threatened at all. But in formal spaces and where there are women/ third sex, men must put on their masks of 'heterosexuality' (sic). It was the same in middle ages, as it is now in a heterosexual society.
The forces of heterosexualisation could figure out the weakness of men's bonds flourishing secretly in men only spaces. These prime weaknesses were:
1. The key is to destroy men's spaces: You induce even one woman in the male space, and suddenly all that male-sexual bonding or that open acceptance/ indulgence of male-male desire evaporates into thin air. Suddenly, everyone puts on a mask, as if there never was such a need amongst men at all.
Case Study:
In a pond in Delhi crowded by young men, they used to go wild with male eroticism ----- both subdued and open kind. But enter homosexuals (Hijras) and suddenly a lot of that masculine male eroticism fades, because the Hijras think that only fellow Hijras who want to be fucked anally or suck dicks have a sexual interest in masculine (straight) men.
But lately, women have intruded the space, emboldened by a changing society. They just sit on the edge and watch the half-naked men or sometimes they also enter the water. And I observe how quickly the male eroticism evaporates into thin air. Boys who used to get naked for each other's benefit, suddenly become conscious, and all sexual games with each other stop. It may happen that someone may make a sexual gesture aimed at the woman to score a point over others, but most men would just avoid and just bathe and leave being very shy/ cautious of their (semi) nakedness.
This is why the forces of heterosexualisation are so keen on destroying every bit of male-only spaces ----- by heterosexualising them. It is only by inducing women into every male space that they can ensure the death of same-sex feelings in that space. If you do it from the beginning (schools) the male will never get a chance to develop or explore those feelings.
2. label male-male sexual bonds and the desire itself: The vested interests could see that although men form deep and long lasting sexual and emotional bonds that last for years, but their weak point is that they are never acknowledged as such. There would always be a disguise of a sexual need for women. The most important thing was that the moment someone broke this secrecy and acknowledged the relationship or sexual interest, the other party will deny ever having such an interest. What helped these bonds ironically was that there was a taboo on the discussion of men's sexuality for each other, and as far as the formal society was concerned it did not exist. Only the third-sex did that kind of thing, formally speaking. And this non-talking provided a cover.
This is why the vested interests instinctively knew that they needed a mechanism whereby they can acknowledge, identify and label male to male feelings in such a way that they are denied this secrecy. That would expose them instantly.
So the vested interests responded in ways:
a). they opened up the society heterosexually. This meant that everything was forced out in the open. But while male-female sex was encouraged and given social space even without marriage, male-male sexuality was condemned. Male-male sexuality dies as soon as it comes out in the open because it is weak. It needs the protection of male only spaces (not gay spaces though).
b). they developed the concept of 'homosexuality' through which they could label anyone who displayed even the slightest same-sex feelings. All you had to do to avoid this labelling was to hide your same-sex feelings, and hide it for good. Now, since there were no hidden spaces, as they had all been heterosexualised and opened up, the heterosexual vested interests had become extremely powerful in these and they would shout 'homo' the moment they see trace of male-male sexuality, as if they have done a brave and socially productive deed. This would jeopardize the 'manhood' of the victim man instantly, and threaten his survival in the men's race for manhood.
c) the vested interests have propagated using every social institution from media to science to portray man's sexual need for men as 'feminine', 'minority' and 'different'. Of course since the spaces are defined in such a way, it surely looks that way from the outside. And 'homosexuals' who fit in the space allocated for male-male sexual need are just as benefited by this process. So they support it full fledged.
d) The forces of heterosexualisation keep up the hostility in the men's space (now called straight) on male-male sexual desire or bonds. Thus the media would encourage and inculcate such hype where men are even scared to hold each other's hands in public.
e) any discussion of male-male sexuality takes place only in the homosexual space or context. Which means that it will be talked about as a freaky, abnormal thing or a 'different, 'feminine', 'minority' thing at best.
all this makes sure that straight men disown their same-sex feelings while homosexuals (half-males/ half-females and sexual freaks) claim all of it aggressively.
But lately, women have intruded the space, emboldened by a changing society. They just sit on the edge and watch the half-naked men or sometimes they also enter the water. And I observe how quickly the male eroticism evaporates into thin air. Boys who used to get naked for each other's benefit, suddenly become conscious, and all sexual games with each other stop. It may happen that someone may make a sexual gesture aimed at the woman to score a point over others, but most men would just avoid and just bathe and leave being very shy/ cautious of their (semi) nakedness.
This is why the forces of heterosexualisation are so keen on destroying every bit of male-only spaces ----- by heterosexualising them. It is only by inducing women into every male space that they can ensure the death of same-sex feelings in that space. If you do it from the beginning (schools) the male will never get a chance to develop or explore those feelings.
2. label male-male sexual bonds and the desire itself: The vested interests could see that although men form deep and long lasting sexual and emotional bonds that last for years, but their weak point is that they are never acknowledged as such. There would always be a disguise of a sexual need for women. The most important thing was that the moment someone broke this secrecy and acknowledged the relationship or sexual interest, the other party will deny ever having such an interest. What helped these bonds ironically was that there was a taboo on the discussion of men's sexuality for each other, and as far as the formal society was concerned it did not exist. Only the third-sex did that kind of thing, formally speaking. And this non-talking provided a cover.
This is why the vested interests instinctively knew that they needed a mechanism whereby they can acknowledge, identify and label male to male feelings in such a way that they are denied this secrecy. That would expose them instantly.
So the vested interests responded in ways:
a). they opened up the society heterosexually. This meant that everything was forced out in the open. But while male-female sex was encouraged and given social space even without marriage, male-male sexuality was condemned. Male-male sexuality dies as soon as it comes out in the open because it is weak. It needs the protection of male only spaces (not gay spaces though).
b). they developed the concept of 'homosexuality' through which they could label anyone who displayed even the slightest same-sex feelings. All you had to do to avoid this labelling was to hide your same-sex feelings, and hide it for good. Now, since there were no hidden spaces, as they had all been heterosexualised and opened up, the heterosexual vested interests had become extremely powerful in these and they would shout 'homo' the moment they see trace of male-male sexuality, as if they have done a brave and socially productive deed. This would jeopardize the 'manhood' of the victim man instantly, and threaten his survival in the men's race for manhood.
c) the vested interests have propagated using every social institution from media to science to portray man's sexual need for men as 'feminine', 'minority' and 'different'. Of course since the spaces are defined in such a way, it surely looks that way from the outside. And 'homosexuals' who fit in the space allocated for male-male sexual need are just as benefited by this process. So they support it full fledged.
d) The forces of heterosexualisation keep up the hostility in the men's space (now called straight) on male-male sexual desire or bonds. Thus the media would encourage and inculcate such hype where men are even scared to hold each other's hands in public.
e) any discussion of male-male sexuality takes place only in the homosexual space or context. Which means that it will be talked about as a freaky, abnormal thing or a 'different, 'feminine', 'minority' thing at best.
all this makes sure that straight men disown their same-sex feelings while homosexuals (half-males/ half-females and sexual freaks) claim all of it aggressively.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION ITSELF IS AN INVALID CONCEPT!
The problem with the definitions provided by the heterosexual society and its science is that........
...... they create definitions based on how they would want the society to look, without any consideration for how people really are.......
...... and then force people to fit into them by bending and breaking them.
People are simple. They will believe in the definitions that come from a position of authority without challenging them. In any case as individuals they don't have the power to challenge them, and the definitions make sure that they remain powerless and isolated to do so.
And the thing about the concept of sexual orientation is that western(ized) people don't have the knowledge to challenge these definitions, because the western culture just does not recognize gender as a valid and distinct human trait, so westerners lack the ability to consciously consider it as a key player in the whole issue of sexuality.
And then what happens is a great distortion of natural traits and needs of people, of the kind that happens in the west (in India too, but only to a lesser extent). Thus e.g., when 'straight' (whose real meaning is masculine gendered males who are socially accepted as 'men') is defined as 'heterosexual', then the majority of men will bend and break themselves to be heterosexual. The fault lies totally with the definitions which are invented and forced from the top.
And likewise, since (male) homosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction of a male for another male, cleverly ignoring the important differences of gender (----- on the assumption that it is the desire itself which forms feminine) gender in males, and this definition is primarily built on the Hijra/eunuch/ faggot space/ trait, then straight identified men will shirk their sexual need for men like anything......... because although the formal definitions just talk about 'male sexual desire for men', in reality it is actually used for the 'third sex' which has (apart from being a denigrated feminine gendered male space) been the space for men banished from the men's community, since the ancient times.
____________________________________________________
While at the practical level feminine gender and receptive anal/ oral sex is the deciding factor between who will fit into 'homosexuality' and who 'into' straight......
..... at the formal level the difference is "exclusive sexual interest in men".
Do you know what that means? It exposes the motives of the vested interest group in devising the concept of homosexuality. It exposes their conspiracy very clearly.
It is not really "liking men" which is the problem here. The deciding factor is ------ WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO IT TO A WOMAN?
It is not liking men which makes you different from straight men (because most straight men like men) and force you in the homosexual space. It is not doing it with women that does.
And once you understand that you will also begin to see how this exactly tallies with the mechanisms of male oppression built thousands of years ago. There is a clear-cut non-breaking pattern in this conspiracy running during all these ages ----- it says:
Isolate the man who refuses to have sex with a woman (initially in order to reproduce) and debar him from manhood. Banish him into the fringes of the society.
Societies have sought to do this in order to force men with women, ever since these mechanisms were developed in order make the marriage institution viable. Because like in (mammalian) nature very few men had sex willingly with women in any reproductive season, unless forced, because they were too busy with their male bonds.
This is what created a strong vested interest over the ages, which have time and time again sought to consolidate their powers by seeking to isolate any kind of male-to-male bonds from the mainstream. They were unsuccessful because male spaces were very strong in the past. Religion was the first major defeat that men suffered at the hands of these vested interests. The other major and probably the final defeat came with industrialization, which gave these vested interests the power to destroy completely the male-spaces and heterosexualise them.
Science was abused (like religion) to give the vested interest group a tool to isolate male-male sexuality in a banished and denigrated third-sex space. This tool was called 'homosexuality'. This is the first time that the straight population was totally forced to give up male-male sexuality. Before that male-male sexuality had thrived for 2000 years quietly in mainstream (straight) male spaces, under the disguise and protection of male solidarity. And this is the story IN the west.
The vested interest group also finally managed to make male-female sexual desire itself the criteria for new manhood and converted this privilege into a powerful 'heterosexual' identity. Indeed they defined straight (or the status of being 'real regular/ mainstream/ masculine gendered men) itself as "heterosexuality'. Whereas earlier it was male-female sex and not sexual desire which made men eligible for social manhood. So you could absolutely disdain women, but if you married and just had enough sex to reproduce, you were then a 'man'. Today you're a man only if you have a sexual desire for women.
And because sexual desire was never a criteria for granting or denying manhood there was never ever a concept of 'sexuality'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)