The Hetrosexual Myth

The Heterosexual myth.

In the same way as there’s a gay myth there’s also a heterosexual myth. There is no such thing as gay and there is no such thing as heterosexual (and just incase you’re trying to escape there’s no such thing as ‘bisexual’ either, but we’ll get on to that later.)

The heterosexual myth is that most of the population is heterosexual and a smaller percentage are gay.

The counter myth is that everyone is bisexual.

All ‘gay’ means is a mass of confused concepts.

All that ‘heterosexual’ means is myopic object fetishism.

Sure, if you’re willing to accept being embroiled in that kind of autism you can call yourself heterosexual, but otherwise you should reject it with vehemence.

The classic heterosexual dilemma is the transsexual. This is where the ‘heterosexual’ man may be more attracted to a transsexual than a biological woman (especially if he doesn’t know) because the transsexual may have even more cultural accoutrements than the average woman, and therefore be more attractive to the object fetishist.

The thing that the heterosexual is lusting after is not a human being as such, but a set of cultural and conceptual traits.

Therefore a heterosexual man may make out with a suitably madeup and attired male, but then when the pants come off there is this conceptual shock.

Infact so long as the penis and balls have been cut off, or turned inside out, or whatever, he may be perfectly happy to have sex with someone who is genetically male. He even gets to retain the title of ‘heterosexual’ if he does that.

After all, a heterosexual is not defined as someone who is having sexual relations with someone of the genetically opposite gender, but rather someone who has (or wants to have) sexual relations with someone of the culturally opposite gender.

This is where concepts in our rational minds, that have been developed over thousands of years take over from automatic responses that have been developing for millions of years.

Guess what? Animals don’t define gender by clothes and hairstyles as we falsely teach children to.

If you put a dress and lipstick on a monkey, it’s not going to make any difference what the other monkeys think of it. Why? Because they don’t accept our fucked up cultural symbols that’s why. They’d rather go with their inbuilt biological ones.

Basically the animals are smarter than us when it comes to this.

Bisexuality

With ‘bisexual’ we must reject it because it’s so bound up with the other concepts of homo and hetero sexual. It doesn’t mean that just because I reject those two ideas that I think people are infact bisexual, because that generally means all the stuff that heterosexual means plus all the stuff that homosexual means.

It would be like if we go to the ancient conception of the four elements of earth water air and fire. Now because I would reject something being described scientifically in those terms I would reject even more something being described scientifically in any number of those terms.

Besides if we are to look at the bisexual thing we come across the problem that people may never have experienced sexual attraction to one or the other gender. I’ve been in that situation myself.

So what is there then?

What there is, is you can either produce male or female behaviours, and you can either object fetishise particular culturally identified gender traits or not.

The normal individual in society is forced into producing a range of male and female and ‘other’ behaviours just to get along in the world. However, what matters in our culture is whether they have some or other types of apparel and styles of personal grooming.

If however, they are not interested in object fetishism of that kind then they get to be called ‘gay’ rather than ‘straight’.

That’s the kind of reality we’re trapped in.

Luckily for me in society, I’m heavily into object fetishism, which would be for one indicated by the number of objects I haul round with me such as pieces of vinyl and books etc.

Lucky for that eh!

The Gay Myth II

The Gay myth – Part II, Witches and Stockholm

The latest in my series of myths that practically everyone believes. Last time was part one of the gay myth

We’ve got this big fat question for which there are scientific studies done. The question is: “Why do certain people of the same gender make love, not war – what is wrong with them?”

So you’ve got this supposed group of people unique in their sexual fixations, Oh and there is the additional factors that there is no historical record of such a defined group ever existing before (although it has been said that they were constantly repressed before).
“Oh, but what about the Ancient Greeks?” you might say. Only problem there, is that it was more of a man-boy love thing, so since everyone really hates that, you’re going to have to forget about your Greeks!

Secondly there is no scientific reason why such a group should exist.

“OK” you may say “I know what I am, and I know that some other people are a different way, so all your talk of lack of historical precedent and scientific reason is going to have to fall into line with that.”

This is a version of the old believed ‘infallibility of personal experience’ that I’ve discussed before.

Basically if you see one piece of evidence that seems to be presented to your psychology directly, you will be willing to dismiss the whole rest of your logical understanding of the world to accommodate it no matter how incongruous that may be.

For instance, if you had a minor stroke in the part of your brain that deals with emotional connection to people, when you saw those people you would automatically presume that they had been replaced by identical clones. Yeah, that seems likely!

Now, witches; That seems like the kind of thing that couldn’t exist right? (And I don’t mean members of the modern Wicken movement), I mean the old lady down the street who you presume is putting a curse on you because your dog just died and she looked at you funny in the street one day.

Yet once people did believe just that – they believed that there was this special group of devil worshiping people with special and destructive supernatural powers.

So where are all the witches now?

Hey, here’s a suggestion: Maybe they got all the witches when they had witch hunters and witchcraft trials!
They must have cleaned them all up so that all the genes of people with supernatural powers were made extinct.

The only other explanation would be that the whole witchcraft thing was a cultural myth at that time, which was used to get rid of certain individuals that weren’t liked.
But that can’t be true. Many of those individuals themselves confessed!

At the time of the witchcraft trials did people say “Hey, you know the historical precedent for there being witches is kind of weak?” So far as I know they did not. Did they say “science doesn’t have a clue why such people should exist”? No. (well fair enough because science barely existed then).

Let’s get it right here: What I’m claiming is that we have a concept which doesn’t make sense. It may have started out making some kind of sense, but which got twisted and formalised and now makes no sense whatsoever.

Part of this, is the rigidity with which a variety of sexual strategies that humans have developed over millions of years have then been described and then placed in the formal cultural environment. Now I won’t describe the reasons for people pursuing these various sexual strategies in the environment, because that is massively destructive to the formal environment. Suffice to say; that people’s sexual strategies are many, varied and entirely tending towards their survival and reproduction. To make this understood let’s give the example of one such strategy:

In some long hostage situations it has been noted that women will become romantically attracted to the men that are responsible for taking them hostage, and this attraction will continue past the point where the hostage situation is resolved and the men in jail for instance. This is called Stockholm Syndrome, and it can be clearly seen that there is a good survival reason for it, in that people are probably historically more likely to survive in such a situation if they form such attachments.

Anyway, we have that little bit of formal description of that situation. Now what if we were to formalise it some more, and add a vast amount more judgments to the analysis?

We could say that some women are Stockholm women and some are not. That is their sexuality. If they are ‘Stockholm’ women what they ‘want’ is to be abducted and then be in close confines with their abductors so that they may then form a romantic pair bond.
So once a woman decides that she is a ‘Stockholm’ she can register online and browse various men than might then kidnap her in the middle of the night and then hold her for a certain amount of time in his house and then release her and which point she would make a choice as to whether he was the specifically right Stockholm man for her. Because a man that had the fantasy to do that would be a ‘Stockholm man’.

At that point of understanding in the culture there could be kids playing and some boys lock a girl in a cupboard, so the parents decide that the girl is obviously going to grow up to be a Stockholm women and noone should tease her about that because that is her sexuality that she can’t change even if she wants to.

After all we can all agree that Stockholm syndrome is real and has been known about for X amount of time, so any kind of madness which we might create around it in the culture must be ok!

That’s how bad things are.

If a male is seen to be acting or looking in too feminine a way people say “hey he’s gay” But when some one asks who you define gay you say “Someone who is attracted to men” So the apparently ‘normal’ man who is merely being attracted to some female behaviour is then ensnared in this concept even though both parties actually doing two different things.

But then what if we find out that the guy who is producing the ‘female’ behaviour isn’t even aware of what he is doing, and the whole time his conscious thought is along the lines of “How can I score with a hot chick tonight”?
So then it’s just the other guy who is then ‘gay’ – and what if that other guy has a ‘mate’ or ‘buddy’ who doesn’t notice the first male’s female like behaviour, but instead is scoping out the room for women based on how superficially cute they appear?

By this stage what we’re forced to do is call one guy ‘gay’ for basically noticing female behaviour, whereas another one is ‘heterosexual’ for not noticing, and instead being involved in some sort of object fetishism based on clothes, hair and jewelry.

And as for the guy who was producing the original female behaviour – he’s already half way down the street with a nice young bird, thank you very much.

That is literally how demented our cultural ideas about the social landscape are.

On the other hand what if it’s the guy who notices to the female behaviour that isn’t fully aware of his own attraction? In that case he’s going to have certain feelings which will cause him problems. He’s going to have to run after the person, tell him, try to make him confess and then castrate him with the culture he’s going to make him wear. He can go: “Hey, you’re gay, and for some reason that forces me to attack you.”

…just like they attacked the witches.

How many real witches were there again?

In the year 1548 at Arnhem in Holland one of the city’s most respected citizens was brought before the Chancellor accused of sortilege, or enchantment. This man was reputed to be the regions most learned and excelent physician, and knew ‘the cure and remedie for all manner of griefs and diseases’, according to the churchman-scholar Hegwoad. But his wisdom was not restriced to medicine. He was always ‘acquainted with all newes, as well forrein as domesticke.’
Accusers stated that the physician obtained his powers from a ring that he wore on his hand. Witnesses claimed that the doctor – who later became known as the Sorcerer of Courtray – constantly consulted the ring. It was stated that ‘the ring had a demon enclosed in it, to whom it beloved him to speak every five days.’
Despite the marked reluctance of the Chancellor to pass judgement on such a valued citizen, he found the evidence was so overwhelming that he had no choice but to find the man guilty. The physician was immediately proscribed for sorcery and put to death.

David Day, Tolkien’s Ring, p20

Punishing-witches-Laienspiegel

The Gay Myth

The Gay myth – Part I

Whenever someone comes up with a myth, especially an entrenched culturally reinforced one I wonder exactly how many words its going to take for them to reject the myth. So when my younger sister said that a guy in her class turned out to be gay and that was “ironic” since he was the most popular guy in the class I thought it would probably be quite alot of words.

Actually, it wouldn’t be so hard if it wasn’t for the far reaching extent of this one into the global myth.

This is a dangerous one, because various element s of it impinge upon the global myth as well as people’s believed personal experience.
Furthermore, everyone believes it’s in their interest to promote this myth.

The content of the myth, is that there is this exclusive group of people (often quoted to be around ten percent) who differ from the general population in that they are only sexually attracted to people of the same gender.

It is usually insisted that such people are born like that and thus predestined from birth to act in such a way.

Ok, here’s the counter myth for you:

There are these people but it is merely their immorality and love of sin which causes it, and they can stop if they love some guy called Jesus.

Infact ,although the counter myth is couched in the language of some other myth it is correct in the fact of it it not being innate. That’s all its right about.

Now before I go any further, I just want to mention that I’m totally willing to go along with the part of the global myth about people being able to do whatever they want to, so I’m happy for people to be ‘gay’ if such a thing existed – or even if it didn’t , and it was simply some people’s idea of enacting a good time. The thing I’m set against is it being promoted as something it is not.

So what is it?

Here begins the problem – let me quote from Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind.

“We know magic isn’t real: It just boils down to a diverse set of techniques expertly employed by a skilled and charming entertainer… we use the term ‘magic’ to describe the end result. The ‘magic’ is the final effect when all those methods are combined to form a particular kind of performance.”

Similarly there is no one thing that being ‘gay’ is.

What’s the diagnosis for ‘gay’? Well, it could be a man who displays behaviour that is very feminine or very masculine or who just seems apparently ‘normal’ – and the same for women.
In other words it could constitute any kind of behaviour. (I am talking here about anthropologically observable behaviour not self reports from people.)

So what this boils down to is anyone who doesn’t fit into their socially ordained gender role basically.

Under the current system any male who is too lively and social, and any female who is too independent and assertive is likely to be denounced as gay which is used as an insult that you can label people with.

Once they have been reclassified they can be excluded from the dominant group and forced into a culture that’s based on chasing their supposed core desire.

The process starts when a person says words or performs actions that are outside the range of social acceptability for their gender. It will then be suggested to the person that they might be ‘gay’ and they will be asked to meditate on that possibility, with the hope that they will have an epiphany of sorts that will lead to a confession. This is called ‘coming out’.

The human brain is very flexible in this regard and will presumably help out, as it always does, to let the denounced person see the previously unrecognised possibilities.

The funny thing is that they’ve actually got these scientists trying to work out how there can be this amazing thing that seems to ‘violate evolution’ when it is no more of a mystery than say masturbation.

There is simply the shortcutting of a natural process (same with drug use) . You gain pleasure without the necessity to go though all the usual mechanisms to get that pleasure.

Actually (for a good example) it’s no more of a mystery than alcohol use except with different social ideas surrounding it .

I’ll give you alcohol using the structure of the gay myth:

There are these people – and when they’re born they’re alcoholics.
If you like to drink alcohol it means you’re an alcoholic.
It’s wanton and leaves you open to diseases.
You can tell if you’re an alcoholic if you try alcohol and you like the taste of it – or even if you have the desire to try it.
Alcohol use will effect your sex life and your fertility levels.

Actually they should use that template to apply to alcohol – they’d save some lives!

There was the temperance movement but that was insufficient in it’s myth building around alcohol. The problem was that they wanted to save everyone from the evils of drink, whereas if they had simply said that some people have an alcoholic disposition and it’s an all or nothing thing then that would have been much more effective.
Because some people are going to drink, and if they could have just cordoned those people off into their own little society and said that they’re not allowed to reproduce, they’d actually have some justification because alcohol harms the unborn!
It could be quite a good social control mechanism – If someone did something socially unacceptable you could call them an alcoholic on the basis that drunk people also often do socially unacceptable things.

[example over]

I’m all for social control mechanisms to wipe out groups of people you don’t like, it just seems that a whole lot of creative and able people are targeted by this one, and although the elimination of such people may help the stability of society I see no ultimate benefit.