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.
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.