08-30-2015, 12:15 PM
meridannight Wrote:societies take their cues from the majority at large, that is true. but it has nothing to do with sexuality in the way you put it.
you think you were taught to act like a male? that it was something your parents, caregivers, etc brainwashed onto you? character and traits have a strong biological basis. they are there in your brain when you're born, and some of those things will be impossible/difficult to change with outside influence. that has been my point from the get go. if most guys act like average guys, it's because it's an average biological trait, not something their parents or the society caused. rather, it's a positive-feedback cycle where the society keeps expecting men to behave like men because that's how men themselves have behaved, and men keep expressing that because that's what comes most naturally to them (most of them, gay or straight).
if anybody feels they are 'acting' anything, whether to appear more in line with the straight male population or something else, then they are usually also aware that they are, indeed, acting, and it's not their true expression of self. deviations from the norm happen with most everything, that's completely clear to everyone. just like there are men who naturally behave in a more feminine manner (and they can be gay or straight), on the other side there are men who are too 'macho' to the point where it becomes a destructive and a non-desirable trait.
the only thing the society expects is some average general masculine expression (consolidated throughout the centuries because of natural biological expression) which is rather wide in its range to begin with. and it is this way because that is what comes most naturally in most cases. it's not something created by the society. its symbolism (prince charming, etc), that is created by the society, and that can range from moronic to inspiring, but it is at our own discretion to weed out the more farcical symbols from the true genuine ones.
i do agree some of the fairy tale figures and other symbols children are fed can be confusing to them, and they can create false perceptions. but it doesn't change the child's nature. it is in the way the person reacts to those symbols where the character reflects. which of them he is drawn to, which of them he rejects, etc.
just as an example, when i was a kid my heroes were Odysseus and Julius Caesar, not some fairy tale prince charming. of course, i read the fairy tales too, and i get the basic premise behind the prince charming fantasy, but that never appealed to me like Julius Caesar did. i didn't identify with that. whatever symbol(s) promoted by the society that the man identifies with, it's because he can see part of himself in there. and we have plenty of symbols to choose from. not just the comical fairy tale princes. masculinity has plenty socially-acceptable expressions and symbols to go around for most every guy. it doesn't boil down to just one single dimension.
the world is not heteronormative, the world is just normative around average values. that's how it is with most everything, not just male behavior and traits.
OK, [MENTION=21405]meridannight[/MENTION], I get your point. You're going with the BOYS WILL BE BOYS phrase... I often have to teach that particular meaning of the word WILL in such instances. I explain that it is to be expected of men to pee standing rather than sitting because WE CAN, even though we could also pee sitting or crouching (or lying down, for that matter). I often teach that MEN WILL forget to put the seat of the toilet down, which WILL annoy their womenfolk no end.... because we are forgetful and maybe slightly selfish. It is what we call the intrinsic quality of WILL. Prediction can be made, studied from assumed and repeated patterns. In the same way, a grain, if planted in earth and watered WILL give a plant (the thing to be expected, it won't necessarily become a table, which would need human transformations, and first transformation into a tree).
So some traits are intrinsic, ok, and some are taught and more or less thwarted or tolerated by various societies.
Straight acting comes from both the need to conform to one's gender and the expectations of society for that specified gender, but it's only called straight acting when it's acting, ie not your real self expression, your natural state. It is learned behaviour. You don't normally talk about straight acting unless you had the option of acting in non conformity to your gender and societal expectations for patterns of social behaviour corresponding to your age, your class (maybe), you ethnicity and possibly your gender... no? Surely if your behaviour is in conformity with what the norm do, then you're just 'being'...
There is a similar and fine difference between
you ARE silly
and you ARE BEING silly.
The first one you can't do anything about... I can't expect you to be intelligent.
In the second case, I think you are intelligent but for one moment you are acting as if you don't have that intelligence... You are acting in a different way from what you normally do, but I know you don't have to, and you can change.
It seems we agree, [MENTION=21405]meridannight[/MENTION].
And since the world is mostly straight, I think heteronormative also applies, as it is mostly fueled by stories and scenarios fed by 1 man - 1 woman-couple expectations. You don't hear much about stories involving threesomes or foursomes, though they exist. They don't appear to be the norm, even though they might be if our societies were organised differently.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
the pieces fit. 
Gemini
![[Image: ZeHqi17.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ZeHqi17.jpg)
