You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘heteronormativity’ category.
Ace Amoeba has decided to do something different, as I feel the Asexual community is in a bubble. Sure, many of us are friendly in joining forces with the LGBT or LGBTQ community, which seems to be evolving into the LGBTQA community which is fabulous. But what about heterosexuals?
How interesting would it be to take a journey into the mind of a heterosexual, preferably a hypersexual one just to be extreme. Doing this would give the Asexual Community an excellent opportunity to learn more about themselves by means of comparison.
The purpose of this short blog is twofold. Firstly I am looking for a heterosexual to interview. I know some personally, however I’m not exactly out publicly as I don’t feel many would understand Asexuality and I myself don’t totally understand the subject to properly explain it as a whole at this point. So in the rare case that a heterosexual is reading this and would like to lend her or his time and brain to be analyzed it would be most welcome and appreciated. I cannot offer any payment at this point however. Contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Also, I am looking for questions from members of the Asexual Community to help out and send questions to be asked in this interview, assuming it even happens. Please send them to the email@example.com , as opposed to in the comments sections. The reason for this is I want the to ask the questions in a way that the heterosexual has no time to prepare an answer in order to procure an honest, off-the-cuff reaction . I thank you all in advance!
It needs to be made clear that I am not in anyway suggesting that there are people in a dark room plotting on how to implement sexual programming, but rather a paradigm of social constructs that basically polices itself. If someone is not sexually attracted to the opposite sex they do not fit in with these social constructs. In addition, it not enough to be attracted to the opposite sex, but certain typecast a model if you will, of the respective opposite sex.
The evolutionary process benefits those who have traits that will make them reproductively successful. Those who are reproductively successful will have more children who will have or carry those very genetic traits that made their parents reproductive. These children are more likely to go on and reproduce to a greater extent when compared to the offspring of a couple with genetic traits that are not as strong in those regards. With this logic in mind, the types of people that have ancestors with greater reproductive traits should be most common. The types that do not will be tougher to come by.
Asexuals, while just as vulnerable to fall for the hetero-normative sexual programming, at least have the red flag of not experiencing sexual attraction at all. Heterosexuals do not have this red flag, but they do have a many suggestions for how they are supposed to be heterosexual, which can seriously stunt individuality. Asexuality, with more clarity as to the difference from the hetero-normative way, hasn’t had a prescription on how to feel in accordance to sexual attraction. This is a stimulus package for individuality.
The closest thing to a red flag heterosexuals have, other than the vision of what they are truly attracted to, would be that what they are “prescribed” to find sexy, which is not the common person but a model. Models have a look, and it is a rare look that does not suggest a successfully reproductive ancestry. Obviously, even a supermodel’s family tree had a level of reproductive success proven by the existence of said supermodel. This level of success cannot be much better than minimal or else there would be a greater number of persons with those traits.
There are many different types of genetic traits including physical and behavioral. Much of what I’m discussing here is inspired from Roin Baker’s scientific papers as well as his book Sperm Wars. I intend to get a hold of more of Baker’s work, but what I have read does an excellent job of breaking down sexual matter in asexual terms. Baker explores the reproductive strategy of just about everything in humanity and the animal kingdom. He does not explain or make reference to Asexuality, although we must have some reproductive strategy if we we’re born in the first place. I have some insight on what that strategy is, and that’s a topic for another time.
It is just as important to be attracted to reproductive traits as it is to possess them. One can be as legitimately sexually attractive as possible, but if that individual has bad taste in partners, than this may hurt reproductive success for future generations.
So what is the archetype for the heteronormative woman and male as compared to their naturally attractive counterparts? Let’s take a closer look. In the sexual world, and possibly even the asexual world to a lesser extent, physical traits are more to men than women. This is a double standard, but it’s not without reasoning. Women’s role in reproductive success, while changing due to positive progress, historically has existed to carry children in the womb, deliver and raise them properly. Men have served as providers and protectors.
The female model of heteronormativity is the types of women that strut on the catwalk or win beauty pageants. Extremely thin, lacking curves and behaving “ladylike”. I realize there is a strong counter-culture to this aspect of heteronormativity, but this is not yet the status quo. Just to give an example in 1978 Queen released the song Fat Bottomed Girls. A few excerpts from the lyrics will reveal the spirit of the tune.
Left alone with big fat fanny She was such a naughty nanny Heap big woman you made a bad boy out of me;
I seen every blue eyed floozy (heteronormative archetypes) on the way But their beauty and their style Went kind of smooth after a while;
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin world go round
Later in the music industry, 1992 to be exact, Sir Mix-A-Lot would release Baby Got Back, which would go on to win both a Grammy and a number one spot on the Billiard 100. This was a more extreme attack on heteronormativity, targeting the magazine industry.
I like big butts and I can not lie You other brothers can’t deny That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist And a round thing in your face You get sprung;
I’m tired of magazines(heteronormative?) Sayin’ flat butts are the thing;
Yeah, baby … when it comes to females, Cosmo ain’t got nothin’ to do with my selection. 36-24-36? Ha ha, only if she’s 5’3″.;
Some brothers wanna play that “hard” role And tell you that the butt ain’t gold So they toss it and leave it And I pull up quick to retrieve it So Cosmo says you’re fat Well I ain’t down with that! ‘Cause your waist is small and your curves are kickin’;
To the beanpole dames in the magazines: You ain’t it, Miss Thing!;
Today, this sentiment is more frequent, to the point of influencing heteronormativity. Women with curvature are celebrated, as illustrated by J-Lo, Beyonce and Kim Kardashian. David Jay, the King of Asexuality, from AVEN did a blog where he described a potential asexual TV character wanting the sexual attraction to butts broken down on asexual terms. The best way this can be done is by examining the function and benefits of an ample posterior.
Women with ample hips and rear can use them in carrying child, which is a very important reproductive trait to have. It is also beneficial to survival as studies indicate that it can prevent It’s not as if men look at women with curves and consciously realize this is these are reasons why. It’s their body subconsciously triggering this attraction. Also, this trait aids in prevention of type 2 diabetes and ironically controls weight issues.
I am in no way suggesting that one woman is more beautiful another, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder and therefore subjective. Darwin in his classic Origin of the Species addresses beauty, validating its existence. Darwin also poses the question if God intentionally created the concept of beauty. Darwin doesn’t answer the question, but beauty is indeed part of creation and the answer is obvious. Even an asexual can find anatomy aesthetically pleasing, or should I say ASS-tetically pleasing. How much Asexy cred did I just lose with that pun? It was worth it though.
There rise of virility drugs like Viagra, Levitra and Vasomax is further proof, as men should not need them for the results of legitimate sexual attraction. Ironically, these men may very well be with women they should naturally be attracted to, but due to the sexual programming they are not. These medicines are needed because not only are they not able to tap into their true selves, but because they fantasize about women they are only programmed to find attractive.
The heteronormative model of man is something that is more difficult to understand. This largely due to the double standard I mentioned earlier. While there are some major changes that have been going on in culture, men have, and for the most part still have control over almost everything that humankind can actually control. One result of this, men are generally treated with more respect on the screen. For example full frontal nudity is pretty common with women in film, whereas for men is extremely rare. While women may be offended by the nudity of other women in movies, men are uncomfortable with seeing other males in the same situation.
It should probably be explained the topic of the sexual attraction women have to the male sex organs. Does size matter? Women do look at other traits like personality, height and financial success, but in general women prefer larger penises. If anyone doubts this go shopping for “personal massagers” that double as a substitute for a live penis. The standard size is 7 inches, and many are significantly larger, however the average man does not have a 7 inch penis to work with. Thickness is also important.
The porn industry obviously has no problem featuring men displaying full frontal nudity. This makes many men feel inadequate as many times these men appear to have well over 7 inches at their disposal and significant girth as well. The reality is that while there are men that are freakishly large in the nether regions(most women cannot handle this), most use the aid of a contraption known as a penis pump that can temporarily enhance the size of the male sex organ. This is possible because the penis is not a bone, contrary to what slang might suggest with the noun boner and the phrase “to bone”. During arousal blood rushes to the aforementioned body part, and a penis pump can unnaturally promote this to a greater extent.
The good news for sexual men “lacking in the packing” is that they too can use one of these pumps, and even if a woman knows it is an unnatural size, the man showed the ability to adapt, which is what natural selection is all about. If a man has this ability, than so may his offspring and the women’s biology knows this and will accept it just the same as a naturally hung male. Also, because it’s blood related, anything that will improve circulation can enhance a man’s gimmick also. My work involves walking several miles a day so I can confirm this to be true, but as an asexual, it’s not really benefiting me and it makes it difficult to walk sometimes. It slows me down and I don’t like that and am looking into creating a harness, but I digress.
So what evolutionary benefit do well hung warriors carry. Pay attention the mushroom shape of the glans, more commonly known as the head. This is actually useful in the removal of semen belonging to another man and therefore increases the odds of a male impregnating a woman with his own sperm as opposed to the seed of other men.
Another thing women look for in men are a well built butt and legs, as both are a sign of good health. A man who is successful, or has the potential to be successful is sexy because it will create a better opportunities for offspring to succeed both financially and reproductively.
This was probably too much information for many of my fellow asexuals, but I suspect some have abandoned this post by now. Obviously anyone alive has some traits that are useful in reproduction or they wouldn’t have been born. Some are just more useful than others at his time. The earth and her conditions along with humanity’s cultures are constantly changing, and so will the reproductive traits that are valuable.
I hope this was a helpful and informative series, and I also tried to make it as fun and easy to read as possible. There was never an intention to make anyone feel inadequate about their bodies and other traits, but reality is reality and I am all about being real.
To continue the theme of the last sexual programming piece, it’s been decided that there will be a sequel and this will be that sequel. Does anyone else find it interesting that what we watch on television and listen to on radio has been referred to very openly as programming? This is not something I realized on my own, this was told to me by someone who wants to remain anonymous, lest I would quote that individual. More ironic is that it’s been called programming my entire life and I’ve never noticed what was right in front of me. That’s how programmed I must’ve been.
Anyway, the majority of the programming gears us towards heteronormativity regardless of what we are predestined to be. This does not just effect asexuals, but heterosexuals as well. Heteronormative programming still effect those who legitimately feel sexual attraction towards the opposite sex. Sexual programming does not brainwash someone into being heterosexual, but rather the heteronormative version of the lifestyle. This is a social structure to be followed even if you’ve been lucky enough to naturally be part of “the acceptable sexuality”.
It is not enough for a man to be man, or a woman to be a woman under the tyranny of heteronormativity. A man must project himself as a specific type of man, and a woman is supposed to take her role as an archtype of a woman that is not necessarily her true self. It’s as if life is all about auditioning for a role in the very television show that will brainwash others. All this to destroy individuality.
There’s an unwritten dress code in the heteronormative world, and if it is violated then you will not be allowed to be part of that world. Simple as that. It is a real law that is really being enforced. If you break the law, you can exist only outside of this world, a world that is nothing more that a fabrication of sexual programming. Long hair on men and short hair on women is generally frowned upon and are only tolerated when it is worn in a way that compliments their respective genders.
It has been proven that humankind’s natural scent is to attract the opposite sex, but the heteronormative way is to cover that up with gender-specific cologne and perfume. Deodorant is a different issue altogether which is about diet more than anything else. There is a heteronormative way to smell. There a heteronormative body to have, and if you don’t have it naturally then it must somehow be attained be any means necessary thanks to more sexual programming. This is serious business. This begs the question that if we are already female or male, then why go any further to represent that. Worse yet, it goes way deeper than already discussed. Not only is there a heteronormative form to which all women and men live up to, there is programming in place to find heteronormativity in the opposite sex to be the most attractive option. That’s exactly what I’m going to talk about in Sexual Programming Part 3.