Ganpati
We have seen how mammalian males in the wild only occasionally seek sex with females, many not indulging in it at all. Now let's look at how it goes with mammals in human captivity.
Breeding mammals in captivity has been a challenging job since the humans started captivating animals. This problem is especially well documented amongst zoo keepers. It's not surprising that a society that erroneously considers a sexual urge for females an integral part of being male, cannot understand widespread animal male's disinterest in mating with female. Therefore, not surprisingly, the widespread difficulty in making males mate with females in the zoos is attributed to everything else under the sun --- the temperature is not right, the environment is not right, food is not right, humans are present, and so on. However if sex with females is as basic, strong and essential a feature of being male as our society considers, then it is absolutely inexplicable why a male 'starved' of females for long ignores a female introduced in his cage for mating (sometimes even reacting with hostility). It is a common scenario in zoos. Zoo-keeping probably started in the west. In any case, zoo-management is strongly influenced by the western ideology of heterosexuality. Therefore, ignoring how animals live in the wild, these zoos routinely keep mammals in pairs of male and female It's not unethical for them, even the thought will not occur to them. Sometimes, males get used to the female and mate when the time comes. But it is still unethical. This corresponds with exactly how humans are heterosexualised by breaking them from men and 'caging' them with women --- only in this case, the cage is social and psychological. Even the motives are the same breeding. However, at other times males just completely ignores the females. Naturally females too, mostly, ignore the males unless it's time for procreation. What the zookeepers don't realize is that mammals are not made for either heterosexuality or marriage ---- to distinctly human concepts.
The problem in breeding livestock/ cattle is much older, so much so that cattle breeders routinely depend on artificial insemination. However the ancients had developed some ingenious ways that made use of natural sexuality of mammalian males.
However, there is yet another aspect to forcing captivated mammal males to mate that follows exactly the same pattern as the oppression of the human male. The following case study will demonstrate this clearly:
It is clear from the above study that whether it is the human male or other mammals the key to making him heterosexual is: - to break/ isolate him from other males. - to force on him proximity/ intimacy with females Unless the male is deprived of an opportunity to bond with another male, especially since its 'adolescence', and is subsequently 'caged' together with a female long enough for him to overcome his natural psychological barriers by adjusting with the situation, he will not develop intimacy with the female. Actually, through this mechanism you can develop an intimacy, even sexual intimacy between any two living beings.--- even between two different species. Sometimes even between two naturally hostile species. But it is still not natural.
We saw how this forced 'heterosexuality' is achieved in animals. In humans it is more complex to work this out. Because you can't literally cage them or put them in chains. Therefore, instead of cages and shackles, the society has developed intricate and invisible mechanisms, both to break him from other men, and to force male-female bonds upon him. We have already discussed those mechanisms briefly on this site. If all of this makes you angry, you have not known the worst. The modern west is completely heterosexualised now and there are no ethical issues attached with forcing heterosexuality or beating same-sex needs, which is already seen as biologically redundant/ an aberration/ a disease. Besides, the forces of heterosexualisation now have science and technology. A number of clandestine experiments are on in countries like the US, to find out the cause of what the west calls 'homosexuality' in mammals and to 'treat' it genetically or otherwise, in order to enhance cattle production. Like mentioned, no one feels any moral pangs about doing this. In their minds they are only dong god/ nature a favour. No one knows what devastating effects it will have on mammalian life. Because in nature everything has a purpose and when you disrupt such a major part of nature its effects are bound to be far-reaching. Also of concern are the possible use of such 'treatment' to genetically configure humans in order to get rid of the 'problem' forever.
Comparison with humans In the zeal to 'breed' like insects, the society has for long treated any human that doesn't breed as 'sick', 'abnormal' and a 'burden' ---- so much so that today 'breeding' itself has become a burden (Population explosion). But heterosexuality has only grown stronger. It is a fact that without forced mechanisms to 'heterosexualise' humans, few males will participate in male-female mating regularly, and male-female bonds (heterosexuality), will be almost non-existing. This perfectly explains why the human societies has such severe restrictions on what they call 'homosexuality' even when it is claimed to be only a very small 'problem' (2% -5%). And why such heavy socio-psychological investment goes into propping up male-female sexual bonds, and why they are so rewarded. |
||||||||||||||||||||||