An Examen of “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’” Part Four.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{cont’d after next ...}.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{cont’d after next ...}.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{10}Editorial Note: The reason why it only “seemed to suggest” that infecund same-sex sexuality is wholly congenital is, of course, because a concessional accordance with an “idea” wrung by premeditated trickery and blatant emotional manipulation, out of some unsuspecting regular majoritarian peoples on a topic which is of negligible interest to them, having rarely had anyone of an infecundous same-sex sexual predilection pursue their acquaintance (and thus largely beyond their ken anyway), is such a hollow victory as to be worthless.

(End Editorial Note).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{... cont’d from before}.

{cont’d after next ...}.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{11}Editorial Note: Nor would it occur to the vast majority of people all around the globe either because—as it is self-evident throughout the sexually-bipartite animal kingdom that the fecundous other-sex sexual predisposition be essential less the perpetuation of the species were to remain stillborn from the outset—an explanation has only ever been needed for sexual experience which departs from this majoritarian kind.

For some indeterminate or unadmitted reason—(mayhap, purposely for political expediency, or, peradventure, to be obscurantist re curative procedures)—a sufficient and proximate explanation remains yet to be publicly established as to whether an agnogenic same-sex sexual attraction is wholly congenital, wholly contingent, or an indeterminate admixture of the two (hence the preponderance of “combination of nature and nurture” replies further above).

Which is quite remarkable, upon reflection, as with an alleged minority of the members of some 450+ different animals interrelating, on occasion, in an infecundous same-sex sexual manner—especially when in oestrus[*]—there is no compelling reason to presume the human species ought to somehow be unique in not likewise including a minority manifesting a similar reflexive behaviour as well.

[*]By virtue of being born and raised on a pioneer dairy farm, in the late 1940s, the 1950s, and early 1960s, in the southwest of the continent known as Terra Australis Incognita since antiquity (and named as such on maps from the fifteenth century to the eighteenth century), the writer typing these words has firsthand experience of observing how various animals—dairy cattle in particular of course—can on occasion behave when in oestrus (colloquially, ‘when in heat’). The afflicted cow will commence what is known as ‘bulling’ (i.e., mounting another cow, as if she were a bull servicing the hapless creature, and hump her hindquarters vigorously in an obvious imitation of coital activity).

The oestrous cow, oft-times with lengthy streamers of viscous lubricative secretions oozing vaginally, will also vigorously rub her vulvovaginal region against tree-trunks or hand-split fence-posts (never mind the splinters from the latter)!

As it is in the dairy-farmer’s interest to have their cows in calf as soon as possible an alert lookout is kept for any and all such ‘bulling’ activity, and to then seize the moment by shepherding each oestrous cow into the bull-pen tout-de-suite. Further observation is required to see whether mating is successfully accomplished, and to enter time and date into the record book, in order to know in advance when to keep an eye on each pregnant cow as birthing-time approaches (in case of complications with the birth).

In summary: as it is not infecundous same-sex sexuality as such—but, rather, making-do with another cow until the genuine event takes place—it would be a non-sequitur to conclude that a minority of some 450+ different animals are of an infecundous same-sex predilection because of interrelating, on occasion, in an infecundous same-sex sexual manner (especially when in oestrus).

[⁑]“Love can be distilled into three categories: lust, attraction, and attachment; though there are overlaps and subtleties to each, each type is characterised by its own set of hormones; testosterone and oestrogen drive lust; dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin create attraction; and oxytocin and vasopressin mediate attachment (...); the testes and ovaries secrete the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen, driving sexual desire; dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin are all made in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain which controls many vital functions as well as emotion; lust and attraction shut off the prefrontal cortex of the brain, *which includes rational behaviour*...”. [emphasis added].
[https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/].

No other animal can do this—consciously make deliberative decisions—and any and all personal, familial, societal, peer-group, and environmental conditioning (e.g., habituation, familiarisation, accommodation, accustomisation, enculturation/ acculturation, socialisation, humanisation, civilisation, sexualisation, acclimatisation, adaptation, induration, etcetera) serves only to complexify those deliberations.

Ergo, whilst the minoritarian indiscriminate sexualism of the 450+ (allegedly) observed sexually-bipartite animals is, ipso facto, congenital, the minoritarian infecund same-sex sexualism of the sexually-bipartite human animal—being thus part-contingent and part-congenital (albeit majorly-contingent and minorly-congenital due to the latter’s contribution being of a reflexive nature)—does not provide a sufficient and proximate reason to suppose it is a case of either/or.

In other words, the question as to whether an agnogenic same-sex sexual attraction is wholly congenital, wholly contingent, or an indeterminate admixture of the two (as per the preponderance of “combination of nature and nurture” replies further above) is a loaded question—specifically, a leading question—and, as such, a non-sequitur.

It is the imprinting nature of love itself—amative love—usually at an impressionable age, such as the immediate post-pubertal years, and oft-times with an older, experienced person of an infecundous same-sex sexual predilection acting as a mentor (some would say as a groomer).

At this point it is worth re-presenting the ‘Nota Bene’ paragraph commenting on Mr. Brandon Ambrosino’s account of the moment he chose to be of an infecundous same-sex sexual predilection—the moment he fell in love with his partner—from Part Three of this Examen. Viz.:

NB: as variations of this fell-in-love report feature so often in anecdotal accounts, regarding the pivotal-event and/or demarcation-point which decisively determined—via the inherent imprinting nature⁽*⁾ of love itself—the anecdotist’s infecundous same-sex sexual predilection, it is well-worth bearing in mind if or when inclined to muse about the why’s and wherefore’s thereof, such as when being randomly questioned for a “man on the street” video, as the adage “love is blind” cuts to the chase in a way which leaves the many and various hypotheses and theories limply floundering in its wake.

⁽*⁾sexual imprinting: the development of a preference for a sexual partner which occurs during a sensitive or critical period. ~ (American Psychological Association Dictionary).
[https://dictionary.apa.org/sexual-imprinting].

Incidentally, it is an ‘open-secret’ in the same-sex world but woe betide anyone talking about it in public (witness what happened to Mr. Milo Yiannopoulos when he blew the whistle circa 2017).

*

As a matter of related interest: the social constructionist style ‘queer-centric’ explanation—that infecund same-sex sexualism is a “cultural production” wrought by the (apparently incantational) “naming and categorising” of infecundous same-sex sexual acts and practicians of infecundous same-sex sexual acts (still to come further below)—does not even pass the sniff test.

(End Editorial Note).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{... cont’d from before}.

• [Mr. Ambrosino]: While heterosexual sex is clearly as old as humanity{12}, the concept of heterosexuality as an identity is a very recent invention (Credit: Getty Images).

Second, the reference to “the concept of heterosexuality” in conjunction with “heterosexuality as an identity” throws some light upon the scare-quotes enclosing the key-word in the title of this essay—(namely: The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’ much further above)—insofar as their usage conveys how the aspirant arguer’s ‘heterosexuality’  as presented thusly refers to something other than what that medico-legal term typically references ... to wit: a conceptualised sexuality and/or a sexualised identity.

Third, and going solely by the above image-caption, for now, it would appear that the mala fide title of this essay—(videlicet: “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’” much further above)—might have been more honestly written as follows (as an illustrative example only). Viz.:

• [example only]: “The Very Recent Invention of the Concept of a Sexualised Heterosexual Identity”. [end example].

Or a trifle briefer (for example):

• [example only]: “The Very Recent Invention of the Hetero-Sexualised Identity”. [end example].

Taken in conjunction with the aspirant arguer’s public acknowledgement of how “heterosexual people were born heterosexual” some essential background info is necessary in order to fully appreciate the implications of what the further above image-caption expressly conveys.

To begin at the beginning: every new generation—the latest recruits to the human race—have a veritable mish-mash of cultural folkways and social mores (i.e., French moeurs) insistently impressed upon them from the earliest age. And the primary reason for the unremitting instillation of all those beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts, maxims, saws, proverbs, aphorisms, dictums, truths, truisms, factoids, philosophies, axioms, posits, postulates, values, principles, ideals, standards, credos, doctrines, tenets, canons, morals, ethics, customs, traditions, psittacisms, superstitions, myths, legends, folklores, imaginations, divinations, visions, fantasies, chimeras, illusions, delusions, hallucinations—and whatever other schemes and dreams there may be which constitutes human wisdom—is essentially because of each sentient being having been born with connaturally puissant survival instincts, which, when operating and functioning as a group, are potentially a danger to all concerned.

And this is because what is known colloquially as “blind nature” endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival—be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group—and, as it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism), the newest recruits to humankind needs must be socialised and culturalised. Viz.:

• culturalise (tr.v.; culturalised, culturalising): to expose or subject to the influence of culture {viz.: culture = the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another}; (n.): culturalisation. [1955-60]. [curly-bracketed insert added]. (Webster’s College Dictionary).

• socialise (tr.v.; socialised, socialising): to make social {viz.: social = friendly or sociable; agreeable in company; companionable}; make fit for life in companionship with others; (n.): socialisation. [1820-30]. [curly-bracketed insert added]. ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary).

This ad hoc socialisation and culturalisation, this extempore implantation of socially and culturally approved mores and folkways, increates an incorporeal socio-cultural inwit or conscience—(an in situ affective-psychic guardian inculcated as a preventative measure to restrain and/or contain the wayward self which lurks deep within the human breast per favour blind nature’s inherent survival passions and preclude gaols from being filled to over-flowing by inhibiting offences from occurring in the first place)—which invariably forms itself into a socio-cultural identity.

This increated socio-cultural inwit invariably forming itself into a conscience-cum-guardian—colligated under the rubric “social identity” for convenience—encompasses various bodiless personae as well. Viz.:

01. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a vocational identity (identifying as an ‘employee’/ ‘employer’, ‘worker’/ ‘pensioner’, ‘junior’/ ‘senior’, ‘peasant’/ ‘squire’ a.k.a. ‘villein’ / ‘lord’, and so on).

02. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a national identity (identifying as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’, ‘Nigerian’, ‘Korean’, and so forth).

03. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a racial identity (identifying as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’, etcetera, or whatever ethnicity nomenclature is the latest fashion).

04. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a religio-spiritual identity (identifying as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum).

05. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of an ideological identity (identifying as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and the like).

06. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a political identity (identifying as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest).

07. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a class or caste identity (identifying as an ‘aristocrat’/ ‘commoner’ (as in, ‘the gentry’/ ‘the peasantry’), ‘patrician’/ ‘plebeian’ (Latin), ‘noblesse’/ ‘roturier’ (French), ‘ariyan’/ ‘puthujjana’ (Pāli), ad nauseam throughout the ages.

08. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a familial identity (identifying as ‘son’/ ‘daughter’, ‘brother’/ ‘sister’, ‘father’/ ‘mother’, ‘uncle’/ ‘aunt’, and the whole raft of relatives).

09. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a sex identity (identifying as ‘boy’/ ‘girl’, ‘man’/ ‘woman’).

10. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive, nowadays, of a gender identity a.k.a. sexual orientation identity (identifying as ‘asexual’/ ‘bisexual’/ ‘homosexual’/ ‘transvestite’ a.k.a. ‘cross-dresser’/ ‘transsexual’ a.k.a. ‘transgender’/ ‘gender-queer’ a.k.a. ‘queer’ / and, colloquially, an ‘alphabet-soup’ of initials.

These socio-cultural personae are related to roles, rank, positions, station, status, class, age, sex, gender, and so on, and that last-named persona, traditionally indicative of grammatical sex, has in the past few decades transmogrified into a sexualised ‘gender’ identity—as reflected in its relabelling as an incorporeal “sexual orientation identity” (in sociologese) as well as an expansive ‘alphabet-soup’ of initials (colloquially).

This sexualised gender-identity became socio-politicised when ‘gender feminism’ and ‘identity politics’ in particular gained traction due to clamorous ‘anti-discrimination’ vocalists and vociferous ‘equalitarian’ activists stridently cashing in on their minoritarian victimology socio-politico influence and its resultant lobbying pressure (thereby shrewdly exploiting the fatal flaw inherent to the chronically manipulable representational democracies as universal suffrage inexorably maps raw demographics to that abstract entity known colloquially as “Law & Order” (a.k.a. ‘The State’).

Because of its legalised investiture with the monopoly on lethal force—such as to render its officially-delegated and thus electorally-unaccountable factotums and functionaries (i.e., bureaucrats, etcetera), the ultimate enforcers in the land—most if not all forms of governance inevitably devolve into a coercively politicised hive-minded bureaucratic collectivist.

As a matter of related interest, the bureaucratisation of governance (as per the “bureaucratic” article above), in the “Western Countries outside the Eastern Bloc” during the latter half of the twentieth century, and consolidated in the early twenty-first century—along with its resultant expansion due to its embodiment in the corporative “welfare state” where its basis-of-power lies—is a truly remarkable takeover of the mainstream politico-economic Weltanschauung by those of a sinistral nationaliser progressive persuasion, politically (i.e., twenty-first century orthodoxy), from those of a dextral privatiser conservative conviction.

It is noteworthy how this radical latter-day fin-de-siècle takeover came about in no small part as a consequence of the fervent 1960s counter-culture revolutionary movements and their antiwar protest demonstrations—fuelled by the fervour of gullible university students, who were radicalised per favour the subversive ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ socialistic-communistic propaganda of Mr. Herbert Marcuse (a.k.a. ‘Father of the New Left’), and the ilk, which gripped the largely proto-revolutionary imagination of those socio-politically impressionable youths of that era—marching en-masse in the streets and otherwise protesting vociferously about the status-quo inequities of the post-war economic boom throughout the industrialised nations.

Put simplistically for effect: the way in which politico-economic governance nowadays operates in developed nations is more or less in accord with what the sixties ‘student revolution’ was practicably on about.

And what those gullible university students protested about so vociferously, and marched en-masse in the streets for, has largely come to pass in the technologically advanced nation-states because of how deprived, comparatively, the bulk of the populace comprising those laissez faire states were before the resultant expansion of the corporative ‘Welfare State’ (which ever-expanding bureaucratisation of governance, were it not largely funded by its correspondingly ever-expanding indebtedness, would ultimately become all-encompassing).

With the full weight of the state (a.k.a. ‘Law & Order’) now backing them what is implicit, in this “social constructionist” psychosexuality of the twenty-first century, is how the days of merely relating as a ‘boy’ and a ‘girl’ or as a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’ (depending on sex and age) are increasingly becoming as if a bygone era due to nothing other than the sexualisation of those otherwise straightforward boy-girl and man-woman classifications such as to increate phantasmal ‘sexual identities’, or ‘sexualities’, in accordance with sexual predilection and amative proclivity (as distinct from existing-in-fact-and-actuality anatomical and chromosomal identifiers).

In other words, all the fuss and pother dominating current-affairs about 101-plus personal pronouns—made regulatory law, even, in some fiefdoms (e.g., the Canadian regulatory kerfuffle over Prof. Jordan Peterson et alia) along with the antisemitic-style taking offence (‘hate-speech’) laws promulgated and promoted by the unelected and unaccountable United Nations bureaucrats and rapporteurs—accessing public toilets and change-rooms, women’s sports, ‘dead-naming’, and the suchlike, stems from and revolves cyclonically around none other than this phantasmal social identity.

(Thus it has become (conceivably) possible for a female-gendered persona of a same-sex sexual persuasion, having habitancy in a male body, to somehow convince that body to undergo an oestrogenic hormone regimen, with the view to having sex reassignment surgery, so as to thereafter use a strap-on dildo over their surgically-fabricated vulvovaginal region when engaging in penetrative sexual activity with their female-gendered cohort, who, being similarly of a same-sex sexual persuasion and likewise having habitancy in a male body, has also partaken of oestrogenic hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery).

Of particular note is how all the above transpires because human beings, presently as previously, are not only flesh-and-blood bodies but are also feeling-beings as well—insubstantive affective-psychic ontological entities having both habitancy as the seat-of-the-emotions and psychosomatic dominion over their host-bodies—who are intuitionally identifiable, viscerally, as ‘me’-at-the-core-of-‘my’-being (which ontological entity is ‘being’ itself when present-to-itself).

The word ‘soul’ (as in “the seat of the emotions” Oxford English Dictionary definition in the above mouse-hover tool-tip) denotes the innermost affective-psychic entity regardless of same being of either a secular or spiritual persuasion (the essential difference being materialists maintain this emotional/ passional/ calentural and intuitive self—a.k.a. ‘spirit’ contextually—dies with the body whereas spiritualists maintain it does not) inasmuch both materialism and spiritualism speaks to the self-same ‘being’, at root, with differentiation only a connotative matter dependent upon each particular ontological entity’s (occasionally changeable) partiality, or leaning, in this regard.

This seat-of-the-emotions ‘soul-self’ or ‘spirit-self’—an instinctual ‘self’ born of an amorphous affective ‘presence’ in utero, an inchoate intuitive ‘being’ in vivo, which the genetically endowed instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) instinctively form themselves into just as, analogously, a vortex or eddy forming itself vortically as whirling air or swirling water does—is not to be confused with the ego-self (an affective-cum-cognitive entity).

The ego-self arises out of the ‘soul-self’ or ‘spirit-self’, somewhere around age two, as the doer of all affective-psychic eventful experience (a.k.a. the ‘thinker’), as opposed to the beer of all affective-psychic experiencing (a.k.a. the ‘feeler’), and is, typically, experienceable as situate in the head, rather than in the heart region from whence it arose, immediately behind the forehead at a midpoint just above the eyes.

Furthermore, the ego-self is not the social identity-cum-cultural conscience and/or inwit as, by and large, not until approximately seven years of age does a child know the basic difference between what each particular society and culture regards as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or ‘good’ and ‘bad’, or ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’, and the parents’ attitude reflects this (as is evidenced in a parent taking the child to task with an oft-repeated “you ought to know better by now”).

Thus the socio-cultural identity is overlaid, via socialisation and culturalisation, over both the ego-self and the soul-self—as an incorporeal cultural conscience or social guardian—and is currently in the process of being sexualised (by those gullible enough to fall for it).

And these apparitional feeling-beings will continue to wreak their havoc (increating and proliferating phantasmal socio-cultural identities galore and thusly ensuring their base-identity remains as elusive as ever) with their dictatorial insistence that their host-bodies act-out their affective-psychic urges, impulses, and drives in the physical world—the world of sensorial experience; the sensational world; the world of sensitive perception (a.k.a. the corporeal world; the empirical world; the material world)—the world as-it-is, in actuality, where flesh-and-blood bodies only reside.

In summary: the sexualisation of the inculcated socio-cultural identity is what the “very recent invention” in the further above image-caption is alluding to (as the instinctual identity—both ego-self and soul-self a.k.a. spirit-self—is universally affective in essence).

• An examen of “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’” Part Five.

Richard’s Text ©1997-. All Rights Reserved.