To create a society against nature requires huge investments in -- the more against nature you want to go, the more investment it requires.
It requires huge investment to destroy men's spaces (to heterosexualize them), and to create fear hostility in the new spaces against male-male intimacy -- both of the sexual and social kind. They achieved fear/ hostility against open male to male sexual intimacy long ago, due to which it had gone underground (primarily through investing heavily into religious doctrines that forbade it).
But since they couldn't create hostility against male to male social intimacy (like holding hands in public or hugging, embracing, kissing in public), male to male sexual bonds survived all these years amidst straight men in disguised forms, behind the scenes, but very much in the mainstream (straight) men's spaces.
They couldn't destroy male social intimacy back in the middle ages because it required investments of such huge magnitude that was not possible for the Forces of Heterosexualization back then. For one thing you needed to destroy men's spaces and to control them, which was just not possible, considering they were so strong. You had to remove all the injunctions against male-female non-marriage sex. In short you needed to reorganize the entire society -- against the grain of what comprises 'straight men'.
The Forces of Heterosexualization got this enormous financial power through industrialization in the modern world. This also gave them to create entirely new social spaces, which they heterosexualized from the very beginning. The forces of heterosexualization gained full control over the fruits of industrialization since its inception.
It's ironical that resources generated by destroying the nature outside (through industrialization) is used to destroy nature inside of men (by heterosexualizing them).
October 28, 2008
Making everything heterosexual
Everything in India today (since they started heterosexualizing it) is in male-female pair -- I mean all dance forms are being heterosexualized, all presenters on TV are made into male-female pairs (when earlier they used to be two males or two females), all advertisements show a man-woman couple kissing or hugging or just being together.
To question or object to that is to "go against human rights" (in the words of the Forces of Heterosexualization). But to create fear/ hatred against man-man intimacy is for them, going forward, being modern -- a good thing.
To question or object to that is to "go against human rights" (in the words of the Forces of Heterosexualization). But to create fear/ hatred against man-man intimacy is for them, going forward, being modern -- a good thing.
October 6, 2008
Forcing proximity with women and distance from men
While most men are geared -- as far as nature is concerned -- only to have sex with women, and not 'love' them or form emotional and social bonds with them -- as is the case with all mammalian species, many other men are capable of having an emotional/ social bond (love relationship) with both the sexes, although the majority of them, under natural cirucmstances will prefer men over women.
It is the second variety of men, that the society concentrates on changing through its heterosexualisation process. And one of the important tricks that the heterosexual society follows is to cut off proximity of men from other men and force proximity with women. Becasue, it is proximity that eventually leads to romantic bonds.
The heterosexualisation of social spaces, wherein men and women -- on the pretext of their being the same -- are forced into the same living, studying, working, entertainment, etc. spaces, makes sure that men and women find that proximity that can lead to the second variety of men falling in love with them.
But, before that, the society must cut these men off from men, so that they don't develop a romantic thing with them instead -- which would be their first preference. And this is done, not so much physically as psychologically.
How it works is this: They create such a negative hype and hostility against sexuality towards men that men are afraid even to touch each other -- like they do in the West. When its a male space, men find excuses such as hazing and mocking 'gays' to indulge in same-sex eroticism, if not sex, (that is what most men seek in the first place). But when its a heterosexual space, with women in it, then men have to be totally cicumvent about their same-sex desires, because women not only expect men to fall for them, they are the first to 'point out' and thus 'denigrade' the man as 'homosexual' or third gender, when they see even the slightest sign of physical proximity between men, beyond terse handshakes or maybe tense formal hugs. Thus, men do not recognise their sexual interest in each other, even silently (as in male spaces), and for the fear of it coming out, they keep away from each other as far as possible.
And, of course, in a heterosexual space, the pressure to prove your sexual interest in women gets to its extreme. Now, there are no escapes for men.
How it works on the men from the second category, is that they are cut off from other men, but they find it comparatively easy to bond with the women in that heterosexual space.
And, that is how man woman relationships follow, which are then glorified and showcased by the society through all the hype created by the media and entertainment industry. Even, when the percentage of people who, inspite of all these pressures and conditioning, do not form heterosexual romantic bonds is almost as high as 70%
It is the second variety of men, that the society concentrates on changing through its heterosexualisation process. And one of the important tricks that the heterosexual society follows is to cut off proximity of men from other men and force proximity with women. Becasue, it is proximity that eventually leads to romantic bonds.
The heterosexualisation of social spaces, wherein men and women -- on the pretext of their being the same -- are forced into the same living, studying, working, entertainment, etc. spaces, makes sure that men and women find that proximity that can lead to the second variety of men falling in love with them.
But, before that, the society must cut these men off from men, so that they don't develop a romantic thing with them instead -- which would be their first preference. And this is done, not so much physically as psychologically.
How it works is this: They create such a negative hype and hostility against sexuality towards men that men are afraid even to touch each other -- like they do in the West. When its a male space, men find excuses such as hazing and mocking 'gays' to indulge in same-sex eroticism, if not sex, (that is what most men seek in the first place). But when its a heterosexual space, with women in it, then men have to be totally cicumvent about their same-sex desires, because women not only expect men to fall for them, they are the first to 'point out' and thus 'denigrade' the man as 'homosexual' or third gender, when they see even the slightest sign of physical proximity between men, beyond terse handshakes or maybe tense formal hugs. Thus, men do not recognise their sexual interest in each other, even silently (as in male spaces), and for the fear of it coming out, they keep away from each other as far as possible.
And, of course, in a heterosexual space, the pressure to prove your sexual interest in women gets to its extreme. Now, there are no escapes for men.
How it works on the men from the second category, is that they are cut off from other men, but they find it comparatively easy to bond with the women in that heterosexual space.
And, that is how man woman relationships follow, which are then glorified and showcased by the society through all the hype created by the media and entertainment industry. Even, when the percentage of people who, inspite of all these pressures and conditioning, do not form heterosexual romantic bonds is almost as high as 70%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)