«Suck my cock,”Among the many vulgar variations, remains a hallmark of the various everyday and profane phrases that heterosexual men utter to each other every day. Maybe it’s a huge and intense inner sensationalism, a colorful figurative challenge, a temporary subconscious sexual reorientation or maybe just a joke, but there seems to be a constant tendency among ordinary men everywhere to ironically express erotic feelings to each other. What may in fact seem like a banal social phenomenon puts us in an expansive linguistic limitation, especially given the broader meanings that these allusions have in relation to homo-sociality, masculinity, and masculinity in general.
According to philosopher Jeff Casey, “Strangeness is a ghost that haunts direct male relationships.” He is supports that simple masculinity contains a colossal number of internal contradictions. The rigid chains of heteronormativity, the paradoxes of the patriarchal system, and the corrupt nature of capitalist ideology all testify to the hot and phallic psyche of the modern (heterosexual) testosterone-fueled man. The creation class society (male invention) has structured our current social existence so that it is rich in unlimited individualism, competition and vicethus contrasting any true intimacy among men.
Ironically, the subtext of many direct-male relationships is exquisitely erotic. Jungian psychotherapist Thomas Moore attributed our bodies as figurative, mythical and mythological erotic landscapes. Our propensity for literalism prevents us from seeing the inherent homo-socialism in contact sports, video games, training, pre-street and nightlife rituals, Greek life, the military, and male-dominated gangs. Like the black woman Audrey Lord describes, erotic can be seen as “giving strength that comes from a deep exchange of any occupation with another person”. If we consider the concepts of Moore and Lord in tandem, it becomes clear that most of the male homo-sociality is simultaneously homo-erotic (not to be confused / confused with homo-sexual). Eras, according to to the French writer Georges Bataille, always entails a certain transgression. Sports and video games simulate (physically or virtually) violations of social norms and behavior through their systemic brutality. We are inter-to act in ways we would not normally do. Act is the key word here. The performance masculinity advocated by many naturals characterized which sociologist David Grazian describes as “the indomitable spirit of competition, the remote emotional remoteness, the insatiable heterosexual desire, all of which are usually manifested by the sexual objectification of women.”
Grazian compares men’s affairs in the night life as homo-social «girl-hunting”Ritual is rich in rivalry. He claims that before the game – which often takes place on the basis of gender – includes a passion for drinking, drugs and music for parties, which maintains confidence and courage the next night. In the animalistic world of mating and dating, Greisan states that male peers remain the “intended audience” for their performances. Paradoxically, many men objectify women not only for ephemeral pleasure, but also in order to gain high status and status, high rating and reputation in each other. And post-gaming cooling off, decline, and nightly conversations between male friends only contribute to this phenomenon.
As a feminist theorist Marilyn Freyr explains in “The Politics of Reality,” “All or almost all that pertains to love, most natural men keep exclusively for other men. People … whose respect, admiration, recognition, respect and love they want … it’s mostly other men … They want devotion, service and sex from women. “Most men remain favorite actors and musicians, athletes and politicians. You’ve all seen their Spotify Wrapped shows, oddly enough, but naturals are primarily seeking approval from other (this) men, often avoiding real intimacy.
Casey argues that “paradoxically, but the embodied desire for heteronormativity depends on homosexual relationships, which in turn are often manifested by homoerotic and even homosexual desires and behaviors.” In other words, in building a society of male superiority built on rigid gender binaries and hegemonic masculinity, heterosexual men have indirectly subjugated themselves to isolated same-sex spaces, all of which adhere to ambiguous erotic orientations. This does not mean that naturals are repressed homosexuals, on the contrary. Such spaces simultaneously create what gender scholars Niels Hamarren and Thomas Johansson to refer as “a direct panic in which people feel anxious about how others perceive their sexuality, and thus feel the need to affirm their heterosexuality”.
Inevitably, heterosexuality requires homophobia. Psychologist Gregory Gerek claims that hegemonic masculinity is partly determined by “what it is not – that is, not female and not homosexual.” It is not enough not to be gay, but you need to be anti-gay as a means of maintaining and confirming your heterosexual status. Similarly, sexuality scientist Jay Clarkson claims that “even the male gay homosexuality denies him the ability to truly achieve the power inherent in hegemonic masculinity, no matter how masculine gender, because he will always be marginalized simply because he is not heterosexual.”
When I grew up, I imagined myself more feminine and bright than I am today. So I was constantly mocked and mocked, mostly by other men, for the way I dressed and spoke, for my manners and simple existence in the world. I was threatened by those with whom I thought I was close – called Fr. pedik to the face and back of the boys I considered my friends. Even today, when I feel comfortable in my own strangeness and bisexuality, many of my relationships with natural men have felt oppressive, rich in power dynamics and dealing with unequal forces. My sexuality is rarely seen as legitimate for them. Comfort, desires and preferences of direct men necessarily prevail over any other. Accepting my bisexuality has been complicated by the dualistic tendencies of our society to see everything in binary binary mode: male / female, male / female or gay / straight. The hypermasculinization and hypersexualization of black men as well as the wide range of anti-queer sentiments in the black community ultimately confused my ability to be physically, emotionally, or spiritually close to anyone. However, as the amazing liberation theologian Marcello Althaus Reid positions, bisexuality is not limited to physical sexual practice, but to a way of thinking that transcends the limited boundaries of being. At the end of eternity our souls have no sex. Unfortunately, many naturals and gays are persistently perpetuating biphobia, denying the multifaceted nature of our existence. However, it is clear that queer men in general will never occupy as much in society as their naturals.
In the same principle, the irony of mere male ironic eroticism is evident in the extent to which it is simultaneously correlated but contrasted with reality. Conversational irony is a “deliberately inconsistent” verbalization that is often associated with aggression, a common feature of hegemonic masculinity. In colloquial irony, there is often a contrast between what is said and what is meant. However, both linguists Rachel Gior and Ofer Fein to explainirony does not entail the elimination of what is said yet “Retells the difference between utterance and subtext.” So when straight men say “sucking my dick“For other men it may mean metaphorically just‘ shut up ’or may suggest some other negative evaluative expression. However, we can also understand what is literally said as an example of hidden values: receiving (oral) is traditionally associated with male sexual dominance, and retaliation is seen as passive submission. Notice, following the patriarchal positioning and corrosion of capitalist ideology, the return and receipt are imbued with a hierarchical structure in which to give perceived as smaller. Thus, the ironically erotic requirement of one of the same sex to suck another man’s penis involves the act of oral giving and passivity as a defective state of being.
Even in strange spaces, toppingwhich, however, correlates with giving nevertheless retains its connection with “courage” through its coincidence with penetration. Despite the venereal vulnerability of the bottom and its bodily by-products, the bottom today must be subject to relative femininity, literal passivity, and false inferiority as a result of our colonial conditioning. As critical gender and culture scholars Billy Ray Belcourt, George Dust and Kay Gabriel to assert, “In the homonymous semiotics of sex, topping is an act of gender; it is a performance of masculinity that is associated with the erotic life of whiteness. ”
Unpleasant notions of neoliberalism – as seen in the collective digital mediation of the sexuality of our culture through the tempting attraction of algorithmically antagonistic corporate social networks, dating and connectivity applications, and the coaptation and deradicalization of queerism and modernism – have created hyper-creativeness. Belcourt et al: “Relations between gays are stuck in the rut of sexuality.”
Then it makes sense why “sucking my dick”And other erotic expressions published heterosexual men are expressed as ironic. The hypersexual nature of homoeroticism permeates all interactions of same-sex men. Beyond “suck my dick » men will say phallic phrases like “on his ass”As a metaphor to scold someone. It is often said: “F— you”Carries an ironically ambiguous, obvious, but often obscured notion of eroticism. In the subterfuge of what is being said, there is a stunning connection between penetration and weakness and fragility. These phrases falsely identify sexual passivity and penetration as punitive submission.
The deconstruction of the ironic eroticism of male heterosexuality allows us to see how the social construction of sexuality in our society took place along rigid patriarchal lines. It also allows us to see homo-sociality embedded in everyday male culture, which is often expressed in a way that avoids true intimacy. Sexuality remains much more complex than our culture is willing to admit. From the physical and the literal to the figurative and the metaphorical, we need to do more to reveal in discourse our daily sexuality. In doing so, we can gradually unravel forever the rebellious formations of patriarchal power.
MiC columnist Karis Clark can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org