Glossary / Definitions
Sometimes we use words but understand them differently from our brother which then creates confusion. Therefore I’d like to define for some words I am using a bit more specifically what really I mean with it…
– – – – – Sexual Orientation – – – – –
Gay
For many of those men who are predominantly attracted by men, it has been a big liberation to be able to name that with one simple term. This also allowed them to signal to the world that they understand in a way they are different than the majority of men and that this is ok (after very often going through a history of being rejected, bullied, ostracized). Also it brings them together with the community of others who have very often gone through similar challenges. However, the term creates a gap between the “gay men” and the “hetero men”, something like two different species or genders. This gap very often is linked to an alienation: Even if not rejecting “hetero” men find themselves in seperate circles, very often not really knowing hot to deal with the gay men. Likewise do gay men often suspect the hetero men to be chauvinistic or macho, just as those who have bullied them in the past, so both groups stay far. The fundament for this is the invention of the term homosexual (and heterosexual) in the late 19th century that painted an image of two totally seperate identities – which is really quite far from the reality. This is why I avoid the terms gay (and hetero) as much as I can. I rather speak of PHomo.
P-Homo
– short for “predominantly homosexual”. Having the strongest sexual desire for men made it necessary to “fight” for this desire to be ok, justified, accepted, although it was different from the surrounding majority. Very often this fight did not leave a lot of room to possibly more subtle abilities to erotically engage with women or, very often, was also linked to a strong rejection of this. Being predominantly attracted by men shaped also the socialization. Very often not being part of the groups of guys was linked with a trauma of not belonging and made it necessary to build other groups (either with female friends or groups of gay men) who gave a replacement for the missing group identification in an age where typically conforming with a group helps to build identity and self security. This typical form of upbringing often shaped PHomo men not only by their sexual attraction but by the secondary trait of a specific form of socialization.
Hetero
Having created the Identity “homosexual”, the psychologist of the late 19th century automatically created another identity as well: “heterosexual”. That was something that never existed before in the millennia of mankind. Never had men thought about the fact of their loving a women, having wonderful sex with them, creating a family and procreating, would make them “heterosexual”, cutting from them the ability of engaging in one way or the other with other men. The “heterosexuality” is quite an artificial bi-product of the equally artificial “homosexuality” that puts men in boxes and reduces the reality of sexual attraction while really attraction is far more gradual, colorful, diverse. Part of the reason for cutting away all those colors, possibilities and developments is the way how a man gets a man in our society: by competing with others. In the millennia before the industrial age, men became men through initiation rituals where they experience how the other men pushed them forward and encouraged them, rather then competing with them. This created a save space of brotherhood in which every man could just entirely be who he is – and experience with his peers that they share the same sexual energy. Many tribes have rituals around it that I am very happy to share more about in future posts.
P-Hetero
– “predominantly heterosexual”, why predominantly? I hear some protesting “Do you want to say that I am half gay?” Well I want to say that a broader sexual interest is natural to men, which is shown by all the cultures that didn’t have this term “gay”. But an young guy in our days who discovers his sexuality with the typical strong sexual desire for women typically makes this one of the bonding factors for conformity with his peers: jokes, comparing, boasting etc. When a possibly existing curiosity of what it means to share sexual activities in a brotherhood is not strong enough, the price of following such a curiosity created through the societal rejection (that makes necessary a clear “I’m not gay!!” with all “proves” of it) would be far to high. So it is not observed, but suppressed to an extend that many are even not aware of it. As a result, anything that could only smell like sexual closeness to brothers is extinguished from the beginning. Very unnaturally! In the whole of history men have experienced their sexuality in a brotherhood that supported each other rather than seeing the other men as competitors.
Two-spirit
Indigenous peoples of North America had a probably more helpful term to address those who would be more likely to engage sexually with their own gender. The term “two-spirit” sees those as people who have a specifically balanced presence of male and female in them – the two spirits. Because of this reason they could mediate between men and women and often had particularly developed spiritual gifts. In so fare they were held in high esteem by the tribes. May be this is a more helpful term that was used for what I call P-Homo…