The history of the origins of the concept of 'homosexuality' shouts out loud that 'homosexuality' refers to queer's sexuality for men, not men's sexuality for men. And that the entire concept is a conspiracy against men.
The people upon whom the concept of 'homosexuality' was first coined were the mollies -- those who were known by the then Western society, not as men, but as members of the third sex -- like anywhere in the world. But their femininity was still misdefined as "males who get anally/ orally penetrated".
Those who invented the concept of 'homosexuality', sought to study these people clinically, under science, and it did not any special talents to see these flamboyant, effeminate, gaudy, individuals as being 'different'. However, the 'scientists' defined their difference in terms of their sexual preferences. So far so good.
The conspiracy angle comes in in the fact, that they defined their sexual preferences, and thus their femininity not in terms of their desire to receive anal/ oral sex from men, but as "male sexual desire for men". This one sweeping act of generalization brought the entire gamut of men's desire for men' into the stigmatized 'queer' category.
What followed was what the conspirators had wanted to do... the media widely popularized the queer sexuality for men, as 'men's sexuality for men', They would deride queers and make fun of them as 'homosexuals', i.e. men who liked men. And the real men (i.e. masculine males), who were almost 100 percent into sex with other men, albeit secretly, started disowning their sexual interest in men, in order to avoid being counted as 'queer'. However, they still had not taken upon the heterosexual identity -- they would never do that -- because it would be a further burden on them.
It was the conspirators, who, along with the new category of 'homosexuals' they had invented and empowered, invented the term 'heterosexual' and later 'straight' to describe those who were trying hard to disown their sexual interest in men, and to divert all their sexual needs towards women, in order to avoid a fate they consider worse than death. To be counted as one of the queers. And indeed, if you look at the stigma attached with the word 'homosexual' or 'gay', you know that it is the same thing as the 'mollies' or the 'third gender' of the early modern era.
No wonder, the 'heterosexual' or 'straight' identity became the most sought after thing for normal, masculine, non-queer males. The conspirators had succeeded. They had finally achieved what their forefathers had desired, but could never hope to succeed in doing. To wipe out men's sexual need for men from the mainstream altogether, and to break men completely from other men. Indeed, in the hysteria the conspirators have later created using the threat of being labelled 'gay', western men today are scared to hold each other's hands in public, when their forefathers kissed each other as social greeting. The media, as usual, is in the forefront of this heterosexualization/ homosexualization, followed by peer-pressure, through which a competition to prove one's heterosexuality and repulsion towards 'homosexuality' (sic) is enforced upon young men.
Today the conspirators, whom we call the Forces of Heterosexualization, and that includes 'homosexuals', can easily sit back and, as far as they are concerned, honestly claim, that 'straight' is about being naturally 'heterosexual' and that they don't have any sexual interest in men. And that anyone, who has a sexual interest in men is necessarily 'gay'.
The contemporary versions of these conspirators are the likes of Bailey, who are bent upon further concretizing this final defeat of men's social/physical/emotional need for men by 'proving' scientifically, using the effeminate 'gays' and the masculine 'straights' as their study base, that 'men who like men' have biological traits of women, including their brain structures, their gait, etc. And that the Queer heterosexuals who are now emerging and who are challenging the conspirator's claim that heterosexualty = straightness, are being scientifically 'proven' to not be really queers. They are also bent upon defeating the 'bisexual' brigade that is also threatening the stigma imposed upon the 'straight' population, by claiming that there is no real 'bisexuality' and bisexuals are merely 'gay' males.
There are hordes of other myths being promoted in the name of science, using this wrong and invalid foundation of sexual orientation, upon the politics of which, the entire western population is structured. E.g., it is women, they claim, who are more commonly 'bisexual', than men. Men are, as a majority, constantly and exclusively heterosexual, as per their claims. Of course, this serves to add to the pressures upon men to be exclusively heterosexual, if they want to be counted as men and not queers.
All in all, the entire social set up, led by the institutions of Science, Media and Peer-pressure are making sure that straight men grow up to be heterosexuals, while the minority who doesn't are marginalized as 'gays', and nobody suspects a thing. Of course, they close their eyes completely to all the biological, historical, contemporary cultural, etc. evidences that shouts in their face that they are wrong. They not only ignore these evidences, but they also seek to destroy them, to misinterpret them, redefine them and to ascribe false 'causes' to them, in order to protect them from challenging their lies. Isn't this how most oppressive systems in the world function? -- heterosexuality, Judio/Christian/Islamic religions, Caste system, apartheid, Communism, and so on -- they all work in similar fashions, by not allowing anyone or anything to challenge their lies.
Their are immense documentations of the institution of Science destroying the evidences of widespread male sexuality for other males in biology (wildlife science), history and culture. Innumerable western 'experts' seek to write off the widespread male intimacies in the non-western world as "inability to find female partners due to social restrictions". They even go so far as to paint the non-western males as 'effeminate' (e.g. one ridiculous claim that Muslim males wear eye-liners, and this makes them effeminate, and then relating this to the widespread male intimacy in Islamic cultures... eye-liners are not inherently feminine, they are not held to be such in the Islamic world, and macho males wear them too. When the society acknowledges the real differences between men and women, men do not have to resort to such artificial differences to maintain their sense of manhood. And is it very scientific for these 'experts' to judge non-western cultures of manhood through the artificial social roles prevalent in the West?). All in all, its a deep, deep rooted conspiracy against men, and one that is the most difficult to fight against, if only because, the west and these forces of heterosexualization, are extremely powerful today, due to vast industrialization -- economically, technologically and politically. They are busy denouncing the values prevalent in the rest of the world as 'backward' and thrusting their conspiracies upon them in the name of more civlised way of living.
The concept of 'homosexuality' as it is defined on the facade, is invalid too. There is no justification for considering man's sexuality for men as separate because all men have a sexual need for men. Today, the western society has suppressed this biological fact so deep, and covered the rest in the straight community, that it is difficult for a non-straight male (which means non-masculine males and women) especially, gays to believe this to be true.
It's like inventing a concept called "two earsnality", the trait of having two ears... Why, because everyone has two ears, except a rare few. The basic assumptions behind the concept of 'homosexuality' are wrong. And upon that, if you see the lies built later on this foundation, to build this concept of 'homosexuality' on the 'third sex' space to further stigmatize it as 'queer', then the entire thing becomes a HUGE conspiracy to break men from men.
Dec 27, 2008
The heterosexualization of (straight) men
Young men know that they are supposed to develop a strong enough sexual need, a sexual comfort, a sexual space for women in their hearts/ minds and that time is running out. The bigger sexual need they are able to develop for women, the easier their life is going to be.
No one talks about it, but almost all straight men (except those to whom it comes more naturally) struggle quietly, without letting anyone know of this struggle, to develop a place for women in their life, because unless they do it, they're going to be queers not men. Mere talking about girls can only take them so far. When men's spaces are strong you can get away with just talking about girls till you get married. And you don't really need a sexuality for women to get married, you only need to do the needful. Marriage is more of a social responsibility. No one cares or knows whether you really enjoy the sexual company of a woman. However, the more heterosexualized the society is, the more you're under pressure to develop a sexuality for women, because they want action, not mere talking.
Its the social mechanisms of man's oppression that have generated this need in men to develop a sexuality for women (or face the consequences), and it is the same mechanisms which help the men to do it, for one thing, by placing such huge social value for men in girls. This social value keeps men inspired to run after the girls. In other words, men run after the girls for the social value attached to them, and the social power attached to heterosexuality than for their intrinsic sexual value. The pleasure, and everything else is secondary, which may or may not happen. Sex is a pleasurable sensual activity in itself, and if all the other avenues of releasing sexuality are physically or psychologically closed for men, then the only avenue available automatically becomes pleasurable for you. Technically, you can also develop a sexuality for animals, if they're the only beings you can actually have sex with. It is the same principle that the Forces of Heterosexualization use to explain so-called 'homosexuality' in prisons.
The heterosexual society has created a huge socio-psychological prison for men, where sexuality between men is marginalised into a queer ghetto, severely stigmatized and kept away from the mainstream men's spaces (straight spaces). Thus a sexuality for men becomes inaccessible for normal, regular, masculine guys who are known as 'straights' (in traditional societies, they're just known as 'men' and gays are known as 'third gender'), who are conditioned to fight off and hate any such sexual feelings within them. They are trained to see their sexual need for men (which is biologically a part of being a masculine gendered male), as a burden that they must get rid of, if they want an easy life. Taking on the queer 'gay' identity is out of the question for masculine gendered males, who'd rather die than have to take it -- So, classifying sexual need for men as 'gay' is practically creating a huge wall between men and their sexual need for men, a wall that men can never break. Its a straight line that men will never dare to cross.
Straight men don't care for sexual pleasure or any pleasure
That sexual pleasure in itself means little to men over their manhood, is clear from the fact that in case study after case study, where typical young straight men became intensely but unwittingly, sexually and emotionally involved with another man, short of falling in love, they still fought off these feelings and either avoided having real sex (which in any case often doesn't involve anal/ oral sex) with their lovers (which were acknowledged as just friends) or allowed themselves to have unacknowledged sex with them, but broke off the relationship which was at its zenith, when they were faced with the pressure from the 'lover friends' to acknowledge these feelings. The avoidance of sex as well as breaking off the bond was extremely painful for them, and had it been towards a girl, they would have made quite a show of their distress, and even have contemplated suicide. However, here they just internalize their pain, move ahead and then try to seek the company of a girl to transfer all that heightened but unfulfilled sexual need. So, although, straight men make a huge show of their sexual interest in girl and the pleasure they derive from it, in reality, pleasure means little to straight men. What means is their straight identity, because the straight identity is related with manhood. And the Queer identity is related with a loss of manhood.
Also, in all of these case studies, straight men although became intensely emotionally involved, they did not fall in love with their male lover friends, some of whom were non-heterosexual straights (in non-heterosexulaized societies, masculine males who exclusively desire men are counted as striaghts) or were 'gay', fell in love (which means they were not so inhibited about a relationship with a guy). Some of these straight men went on to fall in love with girls. While some of this love was a put on, others were more genuine. But whether they were fake or genuine, one thing was for sure, they were all, especially flamboyant about their love for the girls and made a great pommp and show of it. They also seemed to be unusually involved with the girls, with unusually heightened feelings and unusual care they showed towards their female partners -- something that they constantly withheld from their male partners. However, even in the genuine cases of these male-female love, men were able to fall in love with girls because they value their relationships with girls, while they did not value their relationships with a man, and you can't fall in love unless you value something. Their lover friends, on the other hand greatly valued these relationships and had a place for it in their hearts as well as their life. Thus they allowed themselves to fall in love, while the straight men did not allow themselves to do that.
Acknowledging their sexual need for or interest in another male may have more than just the social connotations for straight men. They may actually also render the inbuilt socio-psycho mechanisms inside them useless, if they only acknowledged this sexual need even in private (like in a private survey). This is why they NEVER acknowledge their need even with the partners they're having an intense sexual relationship with, or if they, in the heat of the moment, acknowlege it, they make sure to go back on it and deny it later, when they remember to fight with the intimacy. Because, not acknowledging something that exists has tremendous implications. If you consider an existing trait as non-existing it practically ceases to exist, even when it does so. And then it ceases to affect your personal sense of identity as a 'straight' male.
Another thing that is evidenced from the case studies is that, men who naturally develop enough sexual feelings for girls, that is, they did not have to struggle a lot to achieve this, they are less macho, often softer, than those who struggle a lot to develop these feelings. But they also tend to be more open about relating sexually with other men, especially once they 'prove' their heterosexuality, and have lesser hassles in doing so than men who have had to struggle a lot, and especially those, who're still struggling.
This struggle to be heterosexual tends to take a lot of toll on the health of straight men, who tend to age much faster than males who don't have to struggle so much. This is one reason why gays tend to look younger than straight males of similar age. But, straight men are willing to pay any price to be heterosexual, as long as it is required for 'manhood'.
Sexuality for men a great threat to straight men
In inumerable case studies, where young straight men in their late teens or early twenties, with yet undeveloped heterosexuality, fell unwittingly into relationships with men -- (and this happened not only in cases where men's spaces were strong, but also in heterosexualized spaces, and even in the former cases, there was enough opportunity for young men to court women in private, although, there were lots of opportunities for close intimacies to develop between men) -- men saw their increasing involvement with a male lover, a big threat to their heterosexualization process. They realised, without anyone having to tell them that, if they allowed their sexual feelings for men to develop and gave it a 'valued' place in their lives, (a place they want to reserve for girls, because of the social pressures, even if the sexuality for girls is not fully developed yet), they may never be able to develop an adequate sexuality for girls. Because, in order to develop this sexuality your 'sexual' zone should be vacant. If it is filled up with need for a man, it would be almost impossible to change this in the future, if the sexuality for men takes root. Therefore, in 100% of these cases, men fought with their desire for their male lovers and tried to kill their growing emotional and social intimacy with them. It was an extremely painful process in all of these cases as these men really cared for their lovers at the sametime. So, it was a unique struggle where they were torn apart between a hatred of their sexual feelings for men and a very strong desire for their male lovers. Of course, in the end the social mechanisms won, and the bonds, all of which were extremely intense broke, sometimes without being 'consumated' at other times after a long sexual involvement.
Straight stated definition of 'gay' is different from straight 'practised' definition of 'gay'.
Straight men are forced to acknowledge the defintion of 'gay' given by the Forces of Heterosexualization. But for all practical purposes, they have their own functional definition of what comprises 'gay' and what comprises 'man' or 'straight' male.
When asked straight men will use the definition of 'gay' given by the formal society -- those who like men are 'gay'. However, in practise, it is not the liking of men that makes you gay. It is acknowledging that liking that does. And each straight society has different levels of freedom it allows to unacknowledged sexual acts between men. For example, in buses in Delhi, India, men can feel up other men, even masturbate them using their elbows, while making it seem casual, but using your hands is 'gay'. As 'wierd' as it may sound to western gays, no one will think of you as 'gay' if you quietly felt up another man using your elbow or any body part, except your hands. It is something straight males do to each other quietly. You will be thought of as 'gay' if you acknowledge your interest or cross the straight codes of sexual conduct with men, or showed a sexual disinterest in girls.
Spaces for straight men to give vent to some of their suppressed sexual need for men:
But men do create silent, unspoken and unacknowledged, fearful spaces within the heterosexualized spaces, where whenever they get a chance (which is rare) they give vent to some of their suppressed sexuality for men, but always taking care to camouflage their sexual acts by hiding behind socially acceptable excuses like non-presence of girls, losing inhibition after drinking, watching girl porn with guys, or just doing it because they're getting bored (always letting it be known that they have no real interest in men). These acts of giving vent to their sexual feelings for men often doesn't include things like oral/ anal sex, but rather stuff like seeing naked, feeling up or masturbation. It most certainly never involves more mushy things like kissing or embracing -- which are held decidedly 'queer' (Its clear that what the men want to do with other men sexually is determined by what is allowed within the straight identity/ manhood roles, rather than what they really desire deep within). Also, men never cease to take advantage of socially approved occasions like hazing (ragging) or handling of prisoner of wars in army, etc. to give vent to their sexual feelings for men. These excuses provide men a space where they can indulge in sexuality for men without being threatened to be burdened with the 'gay' identity. Even within the heterosexualised straight spaces, men sometimes are able to find or make for themselves pockets of men's spaces... and whenever they do, their sexual interactions with other men become more open and blatant. This is why the Forces of Heterosexualization are too keen to put girls in every personal space of men, (i.e. heterosexualize their spaces) so that they don't get any excuse or opportunity to give vent to their sexual need for men. The more they are able to suppress this sexuality for men, the more it becomes possible to channel this sexual need into 'heterosexuality'. When they attempt to 'cure' homosexuality, this is actually what they seek to do, to suppress a man's sexual feelings for men and to channelize it into women, although in most cases it is too late. You have to do it before the sexual feelings for men get too developed. Doing it after these feelings become developed is almost impossible.
Men often feel freer to indulge in their sexuality for men when they are in a position of power over other men who are in a vulnerable position. This is one situation where they would not be afraid of being 'queers' simply because they have social excuse, plus they are in a position of power over the men they are sexually exploiting, and thus more 'manly'. Queers can only be powerless, unmanly, sissies. Also, straight men have usually mutilated most of the softer, positive sides of their sexuality for men, and in any case, what they allow themselves to enjoy in these situations are hardened, negative, exploitative aspects of their sexuality for men, that has survived. The negative things often survive, when the positive aspects of a human trait have been killed by the society.
We all have images of how the Western armymen behaved with Iraqi men they captured in war. The first thing they'd do would be to strip them, to feel them up, to make them masturbate, to make them indulge in sexual acts with other men (or even with the armymen). And indeed to watch them being sexually humiliated by women, that has a special sexual value for straight men. The armymen had a perfect excuse, and they never failed to take pictures and videos of their sexual exploitation of prisoners to keep with them forever.
Stripping and sexually humiliating men before others, especially in front of girls, has immense sexual value for straight men. There are various reasons for this, which would be a topic for another analysis. Those in power in the Western society, have kept enough spaces and excuses for them to indulge in this fetish, and when it is so given sanction by the mainstream society, it ceases to be 'queer'. Therefore, in western culture, men are often made to strip down for medicals, often in public situations like army recruitments etc. when there is no apparent need for this humiliation. Women, on the other hand are not required to go through such humiliation.
Seen in this light, the stripping of four youths in full public view by the US army takes on another dimension, that the society will never want to acknowledge. Straight male sexuality for men often finds quiet, unacknowledged vent in social, non-sexual situations like stripping or feeling during medicals, in search operations, etc. There is a cover for men in such situations and the society considers only acts or men that involve anal/ oral sex to be 'queer' -- or at least an open acknowledgement of an interest in men. The social cover provided by these situations mean that men can indulge in sexuality for men without acknowledging their needs. Many of us are aware of this, but we aren't really able to conceptualize it, because it is not recognized in the society as such, and social acknowledgement/ non-acknowledgement makes a lot of difference in our ability to comprehend the reality.
Since there is no social space for normal, regular guys to talk about or acknowledge the pain that straight men go through while mutilating their sexual need for men, men too don't really lament over what they've lost or what they've suffered. There is no scope for complaining. Indeed, they don't see it as loss, they're socially conditioned to see it as a gain and a big relief from having to be queers.
Another aspect of straight male sexuality for men, is that although they feel freer to give vent to their hardened sexuality for men when in a position of power over vulnerable men, they tend to give vent to the softer side of whatever has remained of their sexuality for men, when in sexual situations with men who are more powerful, manly or macho than them. Of course, to be powerful and macho implies in heterosexual societies that neither of the two sides ever acknowledge their interest in each other. They indulge in the acts, often in the dead of night or behind an excuse, and pretend as if nothing ever happened.
PROBLEMS IN AWAKENING STRAIGHT MEN ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THEIR OWN OPPRESSION
Even when straight men are so oppressed by the mechanisms of social oppression, many of them, like a typical victim, are allegiant to these mechanisms and directly and indirectly support and strengthen them. This is ironical, yet true, and one of the biggest impediments in doing any work around this issue.
Men feel grateful to these oppressive mechanisms for being helpful to them in fighting with their own sexual needs when they are the most vulnerable against these needs. Ironically, men tend to see their own sexual feelings aS their enemy and the mechanisms that help them fight themselvs as their 'friend'. This is because, they see, the manhood = heterosexual connection as inevitable and biological -- something which is inalterable, as if they owe their manhood to these social mechanisms without which they just cannot be 'heterosexuals'.
What they don't realise is that if there were no anti-man social mechanisms, there would be no connection between manhood and heterosexuality and no need for men to fight with their real sexual needs as it is their real selves that can procure them their much needed manhood. When straight would mean not heterosexual but a male who is simply masculine gendered, although loving another male would be acknowledged as an integral part of this manhood, as it is in nature.
But most of all, men are scared to be labelled as 'gay' to associate with this sort of work/ campaign.
ENDNOTE
Its true that most men eventually develop a working heterosexuality, but even if they don't, they get the manhood status, embedded in the straight identity and that is the only thing they really care about (it would be just easier on men if they can develop a working heterosexuality, because it would be less stressful for them then). However, this is not a need that was provided by the nature, neither is this connection between heterosexuality and 'manhood' or 'sexual interest between men' and queerhood real. These connections as well as the need for being heterosexual is created by the society.
Therefore, if we can do away with the social need to be heterosexual, men will not have to feel happy about killing an important part of their own selves.
No one talks about it, but almost all straight men (except those to whom it comes more naturally) struggle quietly, without letting anyone know of this struggle, to develop a place for women in their life, because unless they do it, they're going to be queers not men. Mere talking about girls can only take them so far. When men's spaces are strong you can get away with just talking about girls till you get married. And you don't really need a sexuality for women to get married, you only need to do the needful. Marriage is more of a social responsibility. No one cares or knows whether you really enjoy the sexual company of a woman. However, the more heterosexualized the society is, the more you're under pressure to develop a sexuality for women, because they want action, not mere talking.
Its the social mechanisms of man's oppression that have generated this need in men to develop a sexuality for women (or face the consequences), and it is the same mechanisms which help the men to do it, for one thing, by placing such huge social value for men in girls. This social value keeps men inspired to run after the girls. In other words, men run after the girls for the social value attached to them, and the social power attached to heterosexuality than for their intrinsic sexual value. The pleasure, and everything else is secondary, which may or may not happen. Sex is a pleasurable sensual activity in itself, and if all the other avenues of releasing sexuality are physically or psychologically closed for men, then the only avenue available automatically becomes pleasurable for you. Technically, you can also develop a sexuality for animals, if they're the only beings you can actually have sex with. It is the same principle that the Forces of Heterosexualization use to explain so-called 'homosexuality' in prisons.
The heterosexual society has created a huge socio-psychological prison for men, where sexuality between men is marginalised into a queer ghetto, severely stigmatized and kept away from the mainstream men's spaces (straight spaces). Thus a sexuality for men becomes inaccessible for normal, regular, masculine guys who are known as 'straights' (in traditional societies, they're just known as 'men' and gays are known as 'third gender'), who are conditioned to fight off and hate any such sexual feelings within them. They are trained to see their sexual need for men (which is biologically a part of being a masculine gendered male), as a burden that they must get rid of, if they want an easy life. Taking on the queer 'gay' identity is out of the question for masculine gendered males, who'd rather die than have to take it -- So, classifying sexual need for men as 'gay' is practically creating a huge wall between men and their sexual need for men, a wall that men can never break. Its a straight line that men will never dare to cross.
Straight men don't care for sexual pleasure or any pleasure
That sexual pleasure in itself means little to men over their manhood, is clear from the fact that in case study after case study, where typical young straight men became intensely but unwittingly, sexually and emotionally involved with another man, short of falling in love, they still fought off these feelings and either avoided having real sex (which in any case often doesn't involve anal/ oral sex) with their lovers (which were acknowledged as just friends) or allowed themselves to have unacknowledged sex with them, but broke off the relationship which was at its zenith, when they were faced with the pressure from the 'lover friends' to acknowledge these feelings. The avoidance of sex as well as breaking off the bond was extremely painful for them, and had it been towards a girl, they would have made quite a show of their distress, and even have contemplated suicide. However, here they just internalize their pain, move ahead and then try to seek the company of a girl to transfer all that heightened but unfulfilled sexual need. So, although, straight men make a huge show of their sexual interest in girl and the pleasure they derive from it, in reality, pleasure means little to straight men. What means is their straight identity, because the straight identity is related with manhood. And the Queer identity is related with a loss of manhood.
Also, in all of these case studies, straight men although became intensely emotionally involved, they did not fall in love with their male lover friends, some of whom were non-heterosexual straights (in non-heterosexulaized societies, masculine males who exclusively desire men are counted as striaghts) or were 'gay', fell in love (which means they were not so inhibited about a relationship with a guy). Some of these straight men went on to fall in love with girls. While some of this love was a put on, others were more genuine. But whether they were fake or genuine, one thing was for sure, they were all, especially flamboyant about their love for the girls and made a great pommp and show of it. They also seemed to be unusually involved with the girls, with unusually heightened feelings and unusual care they showed towards their female partners -- something that they constantly withheld from their male partners. However, even in the genuine cases of these male-female love, men were able to fall in love with girls because they value their relationships with girls, while they did not value their relationships with a man, and you can't fall in love unless you value something. Their lover friends, on the other hand greatly valued these relationships and had a place for it in their hearts as well as their life. Thus they allowed themselves to fall in love, while the straight men did not allow themselves to do that.
Acknowledging their sexual need for or interest in another male may have more than just the social connotations for straight men. They may actually also render the inbuilt socio-psycho mechanisms inside them useless, if they only acknowledged this sexual need even in private (like in a private survey). This is why they NEVER acknowledge their need even with the partners they're having an intense sexual relationship with, or if they, in the heat of the moment, acknowlege it, they make sure to go back on it and deny it later, when they remember to fight with the intimacy. Because, not acknowledging something that exists has tremendous implications. If you consider an existing trait as non-existing it practically ceases to exist, even when it does so. And then it ceases to affect your personal sense of identity as a 'straight' male.
Another thing that is evidenced from the case studies is that, men who naturally develop enough sexual feelings for girls, that is, they did not have to struggle a lot to achieve this, they are less macho, often softer, than those who struggle a lot to develop these feelings. But they also tend to be more open about relating sexually with other men, especially once they 'prove' their heterosexuality, and have lesser hassles in doing so than men who have had to struggle a lot, and especially those, who're still struggling.
This struggle to be heterosexual tends to take a lot of toll on the health of straight men, who tend to age much faster than males who don't have to struggle so much. This is one reason why gays tend to look younger than straight males of similar age. But, straight men are willing to pay any price to be heterosexual, as long as it is required for 'manhood'.
Sexuality for men a great threat to straight men
In inumerable case studies, where young straight men in their late teens or early twenties, with yet undeveloped heterosexuality, fell unwittingly into relationships with men -- (and this happened not only in cases where men's spaces were strong, but also in heterosexualized spaces, and even in the former cases, there was enough opportunity for young men to court women in private, although, there were lots of opportunities for close intimacies to develop between men) -- men saw their increasing involvement with a male lover, a big threat to their heterosexualization process. They realised, without anyone having to tell them that, if they allowed their sexual feelings for men to develop and gave it a 'valued' place in their lives, (a place they want to reserve for girls, because of the social pressures, even if the sexuality for girls is not fully developed yet), they may never be able to develop an adequate sexuality for girls. Because, in order to develop this sexuality your 'sexual' zone should be vacant. If it is filled up with need for a man, it would be almost impossible to change this in the future, if the sexuality for men takes root. Therefore, in 100% of these cases, men fought with their desire for their male lovers and tried to kill their growing emotional and social intimacy with them. It was an extremely painful process in all of these cases as these men really cared for their lovers at the sametime. So, it was a unique struggle where they were torn apart between a hatred of their sexual feelings for men and a very strong desire for their male lovers. Of course, in the end the social mechanisms won, and the bonds, all of which were extremely intense broke, sometimes without being 'consumated' at other times after a long sexual involvement.
Straight stated definition of 'gay' is different from straight 'practised' definition of 'gay'.
Straight men are forced to acknowledge the defintion of 'gay' given by the Forces of Heterosexualization. But for all practical purposes, they have their own functional definition of what comprises 'gay' and what comprises 'man' or 'straight' male.
When asked straight men will use the definition of 'gay' given by the formal society -- those who like men are 'gay'. However, in practise, it is not the liking of men that makes you gay. It is acknowledging that liking that does. And each straight society has different levels of freedom it allows to unacknowledged sexual acts between men. For example, in buses in Delhi, India, men can feel up other men, even masturbate them using their elbows, while making it seem casual, but using your hands is 'gay'. As 'wierd' as it may sound to western gays, no one will think of you as 'gay' if you quietly felt up another man using your elbow or any body part, except your hands. It is something straight males do to each other quietly. You will be thought of as 'gay' if you acknowledge your interest or cross the straight codes of sexual conduct with men, or showed a sexual disinterest in girls.
Spaces for straight men to give vent to some of their suppressed sexual need for men:
But men do create silent, unspoken and unacknowledged, fearful spaces within the heterosexualized spaces, where whenever they get a chance (which is rare) they give vent to some of their suppressed sexuality for men, but always taking care to camouflage their sexual acts by hiding behind socially acceptable excuses like non-presence of girls, losing inhibition after drinking, watching girl porn with guys, or just doing it because they're getting bored (always letting it be known that they have no real interest in men). These acts of giving vent to their sexual feelings for men often doesn't include things like oral/ anal sex, but rather stuff like seeing naked, feeling up or masturbation. It most certainly never involves more mushy things like kissing or embracing -- which are held decidedly 'queer' (Its clear that what the men want to do with other men sexually is determined by what is allowed within the straight identity/ manhood roles, rather than what they really desire deep within). Also, men never cease to take advantage of socially approved occasions like hazing (ragging) or handling of prisoner of wars in army, etc. to give vent to their sexual feelings for men. These excuses provide men a space where they can indulge in sexuality for men without being threatened to be burdened with the 'gay' identity. Even within the heterosexualised straight spaces, men sometimes are able to find or make for themselves pockets of men's spaces... and whenever they do, their sexual interactions with other men become more open and blatant. This is why the Forces of Heterosexualization are too keen to put girls in every personal space of men, (i.e. heterosexualize their spaces) so that they don't get any excuse or opportunity to give vent to their sexual need for men. The more they are able to suppress this sexuality for men, the more it becomes possible to channel this sexual need into 'heterosexuality'. When they attempt to 'cure' homosexuality, this is actually what they seek to do, to suppress a man's sexual feelings for men and to channelize it into women, although in most cases it is too late. You have to do it before the sexual feelings for men get too developed. Doing it after these feelings become developed is almost impossible.
Men often feel freer to indulge in their sexuality for men when they are in a position of power over other men who are in a vulnerable position. This is one situation where they would not be afraid of being 'queers' simply because they have social excuse, plus they are in a position of power over the men they are sexually exploiting, and thus more 'manly'. Queers can only be powerless, unmanly, sissies. Also, straight men have usually mutilated most of the softer, positive sides of their sexuality for men, and in any case, what they allow themselves to enjoy in these situations are hardened, negative, exploitative aspects of their sexuality for men, that has survived. The negative things often survive, when the positive aspects of a human trait have been killed by the society.
We all have images of how the Western armymen behaved with Iraqi men they captured in war. The first thing they'd do would be to strip them, to feel them up, to make them masturbate, to make them indulge in sexual acts with other men (or even with the armymen). And indeed to watch them being sexually humiliated by women, that has a special sexual value for straight men. The armymen had a perfect excuse, and they never failed to take pictures and videos of their sexual exploitation of prisoners to keep with them forever.
Stripping and sexually humiliating men before others, especially in front of girls, has immense sexual value for straight men. There are various reasons for this, which would be a topic for another analysis. Those in power in the Western society, have kept enough spaces and excuses for them to indulge in this fetish, and when it is so given sanction by the mainstream society, it ceases to be 'queer'. Therefore, in western culture, men are often made to strip down for medicals, often in public situations like army recruitments etc. when there is no apparent need for this humiliation. Women, on the other hand are not required to go through such humiliation.
Seen in this light, the stripping of four youths in full public view by the US army takes on another dimension, that the society will never want to acknowledge. Straight male sexuality for men often finds quiet, unacknowledged vent in social, non-sexual situations like stripping or feeling during medicals, in search operations, etc. There is a cover for men in such situations and the society considers only acts or men that involve anal/ oral sex to be 'queer' -- or at least an open acknowledgement of an interest in men. The social cover provided by these situations mean that men can indulge in sexuality for men without acknowledging their needs. Many of us are aware of this, but we aren't really able to conceptualize it, because it is not recognized in the society as such, and social acknowledgement/ non-acknowledgement makes a lot of difference in our ability to comprehend the reality.
Since there is no social space for normal, regular guys to talk about or acknowledge the pain that straight men go through while mutilating their sexual need for men, men too don't really lament over what they've lost or what they've suffered. There is no scope for complaining. Indeed, they don't see it as loss, they're socially conditioned to see it as a gain and a big relief from having to be queers.
Another aspect of straight male sexuality for men, is that although they feel freer to give vent to their hardened sexuality for men when in a position of power over vulnerable men, they tend to give vent to the softer side of whatever has remained of their sexuality for men, when in sexual situations with men who are more powerful, manly or macho than them. Of course, to be powerful and macho implies in heterosexual societies that neither of the two sides ever acknowledge their interest in each other. They indulge in the acts, often in the dead of night or behind an excuse, and pretend as if nothing ever happened.
PROBLEMS IN AWAKENING STRAIGHT MEN ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THEIR OWN OPPRESSION
Even when straight men are so oppressed by the mechanisms of social oppression, many of them, like a typical victim, are allegiant to these mechanisms and directly and indirectly support and strengthen them. This is ironical, yet true, and one of the biggest impediments in doing any work around this issue.
Men feel grateful to these oppressive mechanisms for being helpful to them in fighting with their own sexual needs when they are the most vulnerable against these needs. Ironically, men tend to see their own sexual feelings aS their enemy and the mechanisms that help them fight themselvs as their 'friend'. This is because, they see, the manhood = heterosexual connection as inevitable and biological -- something which is inalterable, as if they owe their manhood to these social mechanisms without which they just cannot be 'heterosexuals'.
What they don't realise is that if there were no anti-man social mechanisms, there would be no connection between manhood and heterosexuality and no need for men to fight with their real sexual needs as it is their real selves that can procure them their much needed manhood. When straight would mean not heterosexual but a male who is simply masculine gendered, although loving another male would be acknowledged as an integral part of this manhood, as it is in nature.
But most of all, men are scared to be labelled as 'gay' to associate with this sort of work/ campaign.
ENDNOTE
Its true that most men eventually develop a working heterosexuality, but even if they don't, they get the manhood status, embedded in the straight identity and that is the only thing they really care about (it would be just easier on men if they can develop a working heterosexuality, because it would be less stressful for them then). However, this is not a need that was provided by the nature, neither is this connection between heterosexuality and 'manhood' or 'sexual interest between men' and queerhood real. These connections as well as the need for being heterosexual is created by the society.
Therefore, if we can do away with the social need to be heterosexual, men will not have to feel happy about killing an important part of their own selves.
Dec 12, 2008
"THOSE FANTASIES": WHY STRAIGHT MEN SOMETIMES FANTASIZE ABOUT OTHER MALES
This article is bad, except that it at least acknowledges the fact that straight men are not exclusively heterosexual in their thoughts. The reasons it ascribes are only partially valid.
By A. Patcher
[A. Patcher is a JackinWorld reader and freelance writer.]This topic is not normally discussed in sex-education literature or in health classes, and probably not among most heterosexual male friends. However, in reality, it's more common than most straight guys care to admit. Straight men's fantasies about other males can be attributed to several factors; some of these are normal and very common, while others are more profound and signal a deeper sexual issue or unfulfilled social need. Note: While reading this article, keep in mind thatfantasies are very different from actions. Straight men may think of other male bodies or even sexual contact with other males while masturbating, but most are not willing or able to perform sexually with another man in real life. Usually, the fantasies remain fantasies and do not predict future actions.
Adolescent events. First are the factors that arise from events during adolescence — the period beginning at the onset of puberty, through the growing years into young adulthood, until total independence from the parents. When the body and mind are growing and developing during this period, it is very common to have fantasies about the same gender during masturbation sessions. Young men frequently wonder if their friends are developing as fast as they are. They may question whether their friends masturbate as well, or if they have had sexual intercourse. New feelings and changes in the body can create quite a bit of curiosity. This is sexually arousing to many people simply because the thoughts revolve around sexuality and sex organs. At the same time, adolescence is a time for the development of a person's identity. When developing an identity, we tend to take a very close look at those around us of the same gender. In doing so, certain males will be more appealing to us than others. The males we would like to be similar to will appear more attractive. Although we may not want to actually have sex with them, at a time in life when just about anything can be erotic, this emotion can manifest itself as sexual arousal.
Male pride. The second factor simpler: Most males really enjoy being male. Let's face it — having a penis is awesome! We all have certain physical features in common with other males. Depending on the individual, this pride of masculinity may cause a varying degree of arousal when a guy looks at another male. Even though we may have no desire for actual romantic or intimate contact with another male, it can still be an erotic image. We may wonder how a fellow male masturbates or how he has sex, because we find these things enjoyable when we do them ourselves. We may think about masturbating while looking at another guy who is doing it at the same time. However, basic admiration or "looking at another guy" can be very far from a desire to live a gay lifestyle with him. Nearly all gay men would agree there is more to homosexuality than that. When considering sexual preference one has to take into account the balance of desire for physical intimacy with the two genders, also taking into consideration the desire for emotional intimacy — love from companion-like relationships. It's important to mention, too, that many people do not develop a strong desire for opposite-sex intimacy (or same-sex intimacy, for that matter) until late in adolescence or even afterward. Overall, predictions cannot be made, because we all have individual perceptions and different feelings that contribute to our thoughts and actions.
The sexual spectrum. Sexuality is not confined to just three little categories of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual. The "Kinsey Scale," developed by Alfred Kinsey, has been used by sex researchers since the 1950s. The scale ranges from 0 to 6, with a person who is 100% heterosexual being 0 to a person who is 100% homosexual being 6. The original scale took into account only actual physical contact with partners — but updated versions include fantasy, love, and self-identification. This scale is necessary for scientific research, but even a 7-point scale seems a bit too rigid and defined to apply to an individual's complex personal life. (Reinisch, Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex, 1990.)
Preference vs. orientation. To better explain our own personal feelings, we should distinguish between "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation." Sexual preference considers desired sexual actions with a partner, while sexual orientation encompasses all the thoughts, feelings, fantasies, and emotions that cause us to become aroused. Although the population is about 90% exclusively heterosexual in their preference, on the spectrum of orientation most of these people fall somewhere other than entirely heterosexual. Therefore, many of us are bisexual in orientation but not in preference. To complicate matters, according to several findings (including JackinWorld Surveys) close to half of all adult males have had some kind of sexual experience with another male at some point in their life — yet most remain heterosexual in their overall lifetime preference.
Other factors. In some cases strong, recurring same-sex fantasies can indicate a deeper social or sexual need. For example, loneliness and lack of identity can cause an erotic reaction to thoughts of other men. If we are not satisfied with who we are, how we present ourselves, how we look, our degree of masculinity, or even the appearance of our genitals, it is very possible that we can develop same-sex erotic reactions.
Problems can occur when there is a lack of male friends. There's a reason why we normally have platonic male friends: They help us develop and maintain our identity. If they aren't there, a craving can develop. Everyone needs a different amount of this type of friendship and a different level of acceptance from it, and we can never say how much is enough for any particular person, because everyone is different. This is certainly not to say that if you are lonely, unhappy with your identity, or worried about the appearance of your genitals that you are going to end up gay — almost everyone has gone through these feelings at one time or another. Nor is it at all accurate to say that all gay men are gay because they were somehow deprived during adolescence. However, it's never unhealthy to get involved in activities, sports, or hobbies. Unfortunately, many males frequently seek their identity through friends in gangs or drug subcultures because there's a lack of opportunity to be involved in more socially acceptible activities.
Sometimes a "jealous passion" can develop for other males. This is when we desire to actually become another guy. The obsession can then carry over into our sexual fantasy life. Lack of acceptance of ourselves is the issue here. If this is a concern for you, it may help to fantasize about yourself or imaginary people rather than fixating on peers, celebrities, or porn stars.
An unfulfilled adolescent need in adult men can be a factor. Issues such as chemical dependency and alcoholism (either in the individual or the family) can also inhibit some individuals. Nobody has a "perfect" adolescence, and most people can deal with unfulfilled needs in their adulthood. However, these issues affect some more than others. If there is an overwhelming problem with any of these issues, consider seeking out professional therapy.
Sexuality can be thought of as a complex "spectrum of fingerprints." Every individual has a unique sexuality that's different from those of his peers. Sometimes there are things we can do to change our feelings, and sometimes we just have to learn to accept ourselves as the way we are.
Fantasies Of Straight Men: Some Thoughts about Gays in the Military
Warning:
This article uses 'invalid Western terms and concepts', including the following:
1. 'Homosexuality' for sexual desire between men
After decades of bloody battles for the fair and equal treatment of African-Americans, women and other "minorities," how can we still be so obtuse about the basic underlying principles?
Joe Sartelle
Copyright © Joe Sartelle. All rights reserved.Issue #5, March/April 1993
(AUTHOR'S NOTE: The public debate over gays in the military has mainly focused on the tensions between gay men and straight men, despite the fact that the issue is at least as important, if not more so, for lesbians in military service. The following article reflects that bias. While much of what I have to say applies to women as well as men, our cultural attitudes about women's sexuality and homosexuality are significantly different from our attitudes about men's. Detailing these differences would require making an already lengthy essay even longer. Also, I am here discussing American notions of sexual identity; obviously things are different elsewhere in time, space, and culture.)
Perhaps the most appalling thing about the deluge of hysterical fear and outright bigotry triggered by Clinton's proposal to revoke the law banning openly homosexual men and women from military service is the simple fact thatwe have been through all this before and by now we should know better. After decades of bloody battles for the fair and equal treatment of African-Americans, women and other "minorities," how can we still be so obtuse about the basic underlying principles?
Yet it seems that no matter how many times someone points out that the arguments against allowing open homosexuals in the armed services are virtually identical to the arguments used in the 1940s against racial integration of these same armed services, you still have people irrationally insisting that "this is completely different." And actually, despite the fact that the most vocal supporters of the ban on homosexuals are usually reactionary conservatives, I think they've got a point here: the gay issue is a little different. After all, extended intimate contact with black people isn't going to make a white person black; however, the same sort of extended intimacy with gay people just might make a few "straight" people into bisexuals. Maybe more than a few...
Of course, in making a statement like that I realize that I am flying in the face of the orthodox dogma that holds that homosexuality is not a choice, that we can't help feeling these desires, it's out of our control, and so on. Interestingly enough, though, it is generally homosexuals and sympathetic heterosexuals who most strenuously assert this position; the right wing, on the other hand, often displays a more generous evaluation of the fluidity of human sexual desire, as well as an unfortunately much more openly repressive response to that fluidity. Paradoxically (although somewhat predictably), we find "progressives" arguing that individuals are essentially powerless victims of their sexual orientations (the "no choice" position), while the "conservatives" recognize that under the right circumstances, anyone might be seduced into practicing the love that dare not speak its name.
So, for example, we find the Republican Senator from Indiana, Dan Coats, writing an editorial in the San Francisco Examiner against lifting the ban on homosexuals and quoting David Hackworth, "America's most decorated living veteran," who tells us why open homosexuality is such a threat to military discipline. Hackworth says, "During my Army career I saw countless officers and NCOs who couldn't stop themselves from hitting on soldiers. ...The objects of their affection were impressionable lads who, searching for a caring role model, sometimes ended up in gay relationships they might not have sought." While Hackworth is ostensibly talking about sexual harassment here, he also confesses, no doubt unwittingly, that sometimes what can make the difference between a "straight" man and a "gay" man is nothing more than the right circumstances at the right time.
Hackworth's comment also serves as an example of the extremely active imaginations of the opponents of ending the ban on homosexuals in the military. Indeed, a pattern quickly emerged in the public debate on the issue: those who favored lifting the ban supported their position with arguments rooted in the established American tradition of civil rights and equal opportunity (individuals should be judged according to their performance and abilities), while those who favored continuing the ban based their arguments in fantasies of predatory gays menacing innocent young straights. The comments of Specialist Fourth Class Jared Hopkins, quoted in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, are typical of the paranoid scenarios conjured by supporters of the ban. "Out on the battlefield," said Hopkins, "I'm going to have enough to worry about without thinking about the guy next to me. If you're out there a long time, you worry the guy might have sexual feelings toward you, might come on to you."
Now who exactly is it, we might want to ask, who's preoccupied with thinking about the guy next to him? As others have pointed out before me, there's at least one thing that both homosexuals and homophobes have in common, which is an intense preoccupation with homosexual desires. The comments of Specialist Hopkins and others like him assume as a kind of unconscious given that gay men will find the (straight) speaker so irresistible that they will ignore the mortal dangers of battle in order to come on to him. In other words, this particular soldier has evidently already constructed a whole imaginary scenario of attempted homosexual seduction with himself at the center of attention. Perhaps he is just assuming, as so many straight men do, that gay men look at other men the same way that straight men look at women, in which case we can read the hysteria among straight men about serving with gays as a kind of confession of the disrespectful, predatory (hetero)sexuality traditionally encouraged by military culture. On the other hand — and without invalidating or replacing that possibility — perhaps we are dealing with unconscious homosexual desire, conveniently projected onto a fantasized gay man and thus disavowed.
Consider, for example, the approach to the issue taken by Angelo Codevilla, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution who also served in the U.S. Navy. In his editorial in the San Francisco Examiner, Codevilla argues against lifting the ban by reminding us of just how much intimacy with his comrades the average serviceman is already forced to experience: "Moving fast and tired in every state of undress and sometimes full of bloody bruises, he bumps and rubs up against his fellows innumerable times." The homoeroticism of this observation is so transparent that if we didn't have a context for it, we might think we were reading the outline of a scene from a gay porn flick (an impression that is reinforced near the end of the editorial when Codevilla speciously raises the possibility of "the use of taxpayer funds for military hospitals to treat oral gonorrhea or the consequences of such practices as 'fisting' and 'rimming' "). Codevilla goes on to tell us, "Sex is an explosive part of military life. Young men are at the peak of desire. ...To say that the atmosphere aboard ship is sexually charged is an understatement." Since these young men are presumably heterosexual, one has to wonder where so much sexual tension is coming from — of course it couldn't be from all that running around naked and rubbing up against each other, could it?
It seems to me an obvious point to make, that the vicious homophobia typical of military culture must be directly related to the fact that military life is by its very nature incredibly homoerotic. What I am referring to with the term "homoerotic" is the simple fact that, as Eve Sedgwick puts it in her book Between Men, "what goes on at football games, in fraternities, at the Bohemian Grove, and at climactic moments in war novels can look, with only a slight shift of optic, quite startlingly 'homosexual'..." The imaginations, at least, of both Codevilla and Specialist Hopkins seem to recognize this fact, and both are thus concerned with seeing to it that Sedgwick's "slight shift of optic" is suppressed as a possibility. Both men's comments are representative of the conservative fear — also seen in the nervously energetic homoerotics of buddy movies like Lethal Weapon — that the good, clean, sexless and often brutal "normal" homoeroticism of straight male culture might at any moment cross over into the forbidden zone of actual homosexuality. Instead of sexual tension and "accidental" half-dressed bumping and rubbing, guys might decide to simply have sex; as in the case of conservative fears about the pleasures of casual drug use, one thing might lead to another... This is the premise, of course, of an awful lot of gay sexual fantasies. Locker rooms, fraternities and military life are staples of gay pornography because these places are already in some basic sense "homosexual": everyone is the same sex, and there's a great deal of physical intimacy.
So what is quite striking about the debate over gays in the military is that the stereotypical imaginary scenarios of gay fantasy are appearing with such regularity in the paranoid fantasies of straight men who oppose lifting the ban, such as the two men I've already quoted. Opposition to the open presence of homosexuals in the military (or anywhere, for that matter) is grounded in the wish to prevent these scenarios from becoming realities to the fullest extent possible. In other words, in much of the support for maintaining the ban on gays in the military we find straight men defending themselves against their own anxious homoerotic fantasies through the active repression and suppression of actual gay men, who are blamed for their intrinsically disruptive presence, in exactly the same way many straight men blame attractive women. The current controversy about gays in the military has more than a little in common with the ongoing controversy about the sexual harassment of women in the military. For example, both the gay man in military service and the sexy woman in the presence of a group of military men are perceived as "asking for it," the difference being that sexy women are supposedly invitations to Getting Laid, while sexy gay men are invitations to that other time-honored ritual proof of manhood, Beating Someone Up. Fag-bashing, like the sexual violation of women, should be recognized as a form of rape: both are violent physical attacks directed intentionally at someone's sexuality.
However, fag-bashing, despite being an intimately physical experience of sexual humiliation, is not commonly perceived as a sex crime in the same sense as rape, presumably because the fag-bashers are "straight," and "straight" men don't feel sexual desire for other men (that's what makes them different from gays, right?). So fag-bashing, according to this reasoning, is essentially different from woman-raping because there can be no sexual motivation to the attack on a gay man. But at the same time that we as a culture strive to maintain this useful fiction as a kind of "official" ideology about the fundamental difference between hetero and homo sexualities, we also routinely confess to the strong suspicion that fag-bashers are "really" gay themselves, or maybe they're "confused, " and are just, as the saying goes, not dealing with it very well.
Given how often we hear of or know people who have experienced at least some degree of "confusion" about their sexual orientations before settling into their "true" identities, it's amazing that we are still in so much denial — culturally, socially, individually — about the implications of that common confusion. "Confusion" about one's sexual identity can only come from conflicting desires, from feeling varying degrees of attraction to both sexes. What I know of my own experience and others' suggests that such "confusion" is in fact so common as to be a normal aspect of human development, particularly during adolescence.
However, because we live in a culture that teaches us that heterosexual desire is not just natural, desirable, and normal but also completely incompatible with homosexual desire, we are encouraged to regard our bisexual potential as "confusion" rather than a normal human sexual response. Our current "common sense" about sexual identity tells us that a certain degree of homosexual attraction is normal, but that sexual identity is a matter of being eitherstraight or gay, and in either case it's just the way you are, not something you "choose" — so anything else is just "confusion." In my experience, some version of this understanding is shared by most gays and straights alike.
It should be easy to see, then, how an integral part of our "sexual identities," whether straight or gay, is a kind of search-and-destroy program that continually scans for signs of the "opposite" orientation so that these "confusing" impulses can be neutralized through the usual array of psychological defense mechanisms. The "success" of the program is measured by how effectively it blocks conscious recognition of any attraction to the "wrong" sex, attractions that "confuse" our sexual identities. The search-and-destroy mission is especially important, of course, in the construction of "normal" heterosexual masculinity; seen in this light, fag-bashing is merely the outward and visible expression of an interior psychological conflict.
Returning to the specific issue of the debate over gays in the military, we can see now why, in Angelo Codevilla's editorial, an emphasis on the sexually tense and homoerotic atmosphere of military service would quickly yield to warnings about the inevitability of violent attacks against openly gay servicemen. Indeed, this movement has characterized the shifts in emphasis of the larger public debate: first the paranoid fantasies of predatory gays and the "discomfort" of straights at the idea of having openly gay men around them, and then the threats of violent harassment of gay servicemen. Since the fears about how gays will actually behave if they were allowed to come out about their sexuality are easily answered by already-existing codes of conduct that will work equally well — if enforced — for gays as well as straights, the opposition to lifting the ban seems to be left with basing its case on assurances of morale problems (again, no matter that this is exactly what the opponents of racial integration of the military said, too). Straight servicemen will be offended and uncomfortable, and gay servicemen will get beat up.
So we are left with only one meaningful question, which is, what are these guys so afraid of? After all, we're talking about military personnel — rough, tough super-macho guys, men intimate with guns, trained killers. Yet these are the people whose sensibilities are so sensitive that the possibility that they are merely being looked at with sexual interest by another man is supposedly intolerable to them. But why? If a gay soldier, say, were to make an unwanted pass at a straight comrade, why can't the straight man politely and firmly refuse, the way one refuses any unwanted friendly advances? A refusal to take "no" for an answer would constitute sexual harassment, and could be dealt with accordingly. But all that changes, of course, if what is truly intolerable in this situation is the straight man's unthinkable and unspeakable interest in saying "yes."
As I have tried to suggest, the open presence of homosexuals is considered intolerable within the already extremely homoerotic context of military life because it undermines what we might call the "heterosexual alibi," the security "straight" men can feel despite the constant homoeroticism of their lives because of the belief that gay men arefundamentally and identifiably different from themselves. Without that alibi to protect them, the obvious pleasure many straight men get from homoerotic situations (if you doubt this, spend some time in a gym) begins to look too much like what it actually is, a covert and sublimated way of gratifying forbidden "homosexual" desires. Straight men spend so much time nervously identifying and parodying "gay" mannerisms (as in the case of Ollie North's much-publicized recent "joke") in order to reassure themselves and others that they couldn't possibly be gay themselves, since they don't act like that. The heterosexual alibi is perpetuated by any and every insistence that there is an objectively measurable difference between "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" that goes beyond the specifics of their genital relations — which also means, as I shall discuss shortly, that it's not just straight people who buy into the heterosexual alibi.
Without the heterosexual alibi of the essential difference between straight and gay, heterosexuals are faced with the reality that there are people who seem just like themselves, but who not only openly admit to forbidden homosexual attractions, but even go so far as to act on them with pleasure and satisfaction! If you were someone who had invested a lot of energy in the psychological work of repressing and denying your own homosexual attractions — and in the case of military service, this work would be a full-time job — with all the necessary frustration and unpleasure that entails, you'd probably find the presence of open homosexuals intolerable, too. Who wants to find out that all that hard work wasn't necessary? And if you couldn't get rid of them, you might find a safe outlet for your own frustration — sorry, I mean confusion — in tormenting them, "proving" your own essential difference even as you unconsciously mirror their interest in homosexual arousal.
So finally my point is simply that the opposition to gays in the military is really about trying to preserve the heterosexual alibi. When there are gay men in the locker rooms, so to speak, behaving pretty much just like the straight men do, then suddenly all that innocent, playful homoeroticism — that "typical guy behavior" — might not look so innocent any more, simply because we can recognize its erotic dimensions. And now it's time to confront the fact that the only reason there is any problem here at all is because of the entrenched belief that homosexual desires are unnatural and bad (the more liberal version being that the desires are bad but OK, so long as you don't act on them, but it amounts to the same thing). If we accepted homosexual desire as a normal component of human sexuality that varies in strength in each individual — which is what experience as opposed to ideology tells us — then same-sex attractions wouldn't be a problem, and neither would gays in the military.
Unfortunately, it is not just homophobic straights who seek to preserve and strengthen the heterosexual alibi. The ways in which gay people commonly understand and define our own "sexual identities" are also often deeply complicit with the heterosexual alibi. Partly the insistence upon the essential difference of gay identity has been useful for both our political and psychological survival. If gays are indistinguishable from straights in everything but our sexual practices, then we are invisible, and invisibility leads to isolation, fear and weakness. Adoption of a number of common "markers" of gayness — in the ways we dress, talk, consume, etc. — helps us find each other and thus support each other. However, in my experience gay people are perhaps even more likely than straights to forget that these markers have been attached to our sexual orientation and are not, therefore, necessary functions of our homosexuality. In other words, we tend to act as though we believe, in accord with the heterosexual alibi, that there is an essential and thus absolute difference between gay and straight, which manifests itself in more than just our choice of sexual partners.
If such a constitutional difference exists, it must exist across the board; it must be something common to all gays but absent from all straights if it's going to serve as a reliable indicator of sexual preference. Obviously, this is going to be hard to establish as long as we're dealing with things like a taste for leather or Julie Andrews records, or a knack for interior decorating. What we need, according to the dominant thinking on the subject, is something more scientific, so that we can finally prove the difference! As many of you know, the other big news about gays in the mainstream media recently has been a series of reports about medical research into the question of whether homosexuality is biologically or socially produced.
The most widely-publicized study has been the "gay brain" research conducted by Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute. LeVay claims to have found a meaningful difference in the size of the hypothalamus in gay men and straight men. I am not going to go into the details of his work, or the numerous objections that have been raised about his very questionable methodology — all that has been detailed elsewhere. What I am interested in here are the underlying motivations for his research, which are shared by others seeking to prove that homosexuality is biologically-determined. LeVay, like many others who are committed to this theory, is himself a gay man. The interest in establishing a biological basis for homosexuality, according to public statements from LeVay and his supporters, comes from the wish to help gay people by showing the world that we can't help being gay, that it's part of our biological make-up and thus "out of our control."
While I am sympathetic to the idea that if the straight world would just accept that we do not "choose" to be attracted strongly and primarily to individuals of our own sex, then we stand a better chance of gaining acceptance and toleration, I find the implications of this reasoning to be dangerously self-defeating. For in defending our sexuality by saying that "we have no choice," aren't we implying that if we did have a choice, we both shouldn't and wouldn't choose to be gay? That therefore, in some deep sense, it really is "better" to be straight, and abnormal to be gay? I think that gay people would better serve their interests by insisting, firmly and unequivocally, that there issimply nothing wrong with homosexuality and that therefore all questions of where it comes from are irrelevant.
As I observed near the beginning of this essay, the position that we have "no choice" about our sexual desires is objectionable not least because it is an extension of the victim-oriented logic that currently dominates "progressive" or "liberal" thinking. To say that gay people do not choose their sexual preferences is to make them into victims of their desires; and however titillating it may be to think of ourselves as thralls to our passions, it is hardly a responsible position to take. As victims of repression and oppression, gay people have an obvious stake in expanding our human sexual freedom, not further restricting it by building limitations into our biology.
And it is also the case that arguments which seek to establish a biological basis for sexual preference are fully complicit with the heterosexual alibi, since both are efforts to establish some absolute difference between gay and straight. The theory that one is biologically constituted as either heterosexual or homosexual — that the two are mutually exclusive rather than complementary — is just as likely in practical terms to make it easier for straight people to dismiss their "confusions" and to consolidate their homoerotic-homophobic identities as it is likely to make them more sympathetic to gays. Since the basis of sympathy is some sort of identification, a recognition of one's self in another, I have to say that I think the cause of liberating ourselves as gay people would be better served by liberating the gay potential in everyone (as well as the straight potential in ourselves). Only then would "straight" people come to realize that in attacking us they are attacking something within themselves.
Finally, I do not wish to be understood as arguing that we are all "really" bisexuals. Rather, more precisely I am arguing that we are all, as human beings, potential bisexuals who have been taught, through an elaborate system of social rewards and punishments, to see ourselves as "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals." The fact that bisexuals are in a very real sense the most invisible "sexual identity" makes perfect sense in these terms: the existence of functionally bisexual individuals radically undermines any belief in the exclusivity of heterosexual and homosexual attractions. And as I have also tried to point out, what we know about how human beings actually experience their sexual desires supports the position that bisexuality is the norm, while both hetero- and homosexuality are learned restrictions of that potential.
This does not mean that when either gay or straight people say that they feel like they are "really" heterosexual or homosexual that they are being untruthful. It just means that they have so successfully conformed to dominant ideas of sexual identity that whatever bisexual potential they once had has atrophied, even to the point of its effective extinction. In other words, just because our identities are socially constructed doesn't mean that they aren't, in a very real way, "authentic." However, just because my own sexuality has been crippled by my socialization doesn't mean I want to promote my limitations as the "natural" standard for others, such as the future generations of humanity. I know that it feels like I have no choice in my sexual orientation toward men; but I also know that I am capable of attractions to women that, if they had been handled differently earlier in my development, might have led to my being bisexual rather than homosexual (I doubt I could ever have been "straight").
What I am talking about is a fully human sexuality, rather than the pre-human "sexual identities" that now afflict us. The people we now call "homosexuals" are most likely, seen in this light, that relatively small minority of individuals whose homosexual attractions are so much stronger than our heterosexual attractions as to render those latter feelings almost invisible. In that sense we "have no choice." Similarly, we would expect to find a comparable minority of people for whom the opposite is true, who "have no choice" but to be heterosexual. But I think that in a fully human society, the overwhelming majority of people would fall somewhere in the middle, more or less indifferent to the biological sex of their partners, attracted instead to the qualities of individuals as humans and not as sexes. Of course there would be varying degrees of bisexuality, with some people tending to choose one sex rather than the other. But the important point here is that it would be a choice, and thus an affirmation of our freedom — and freedom to choose is what makes us human.
We are a very long way from such a world, but even if it's a fantasy, at least it's a compelling one, certainly more worth believing in than the ideology of the heterosexual alibi that dominates both gay and straight thinking about sexual identity. For despite everything we know about the complexities of human sexuality, the debate over gays in the military shows us how much we persist in denying that complexity, invested as we all are in fantasies of straight men, perfect heterosexuals uncontaminated by any sexual interest in their fellow men. It may be that the hysteria over gays in the military is really only the last gasp of the old conceptions and attitudes; certainly today's young people are growing up in a sexual landscape very different from what has come before. The ongoing hype surrounding The Crying Game is one sign of this, like the popularity of androgynous styles and the omnipresence of sexually objectified male bodies. Perhaps what we are witnessing, as others have suggested, is the liberation of sexuality from reproduction and thus from "nature" — and along with it the nervous and tentative recognition that once sexual pleasure doesn't have to be tied to making babies, there's no longer any pressing reason to enforce heterosexuality, or to suppress homosexuality. As Marx observes in the third volume of Capital, the realm of freedom begins only where the realm of necessity ends. So long as we insist that we have no choice about our sexuality, whether we define it as gay or straight, we cannot be free, and we will remain something less than fully human.
Joe Sartelle is a graduate student at UC Berkeley and Co-Editor of Bad Subjects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)