User:Sid20078/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Sid20078. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Heterosexualization

Many researchers and psychologist have argued that heterosexualization has been used for imposing a masculine image among males (Mohr, 2008). In light of this opinion, it is interesting to examine “the role of media in creation of pseudo- masculinity among male members of society while promoting the concept of heterosexualization”.

Heterosexualization and Media

The process of heterosexualization got the attention of media in the industrialized and post- industrialized west, particularly in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and other European countries. Since that period, media has presented heterosexual behavior as a synonym of masculinity through several means. This is evident through the messages of print media and television shows that a society has to be heterosexual, and men is under tremendous pressure to develop the same (Ratele & Duncanm, 2003). Media, in these counties, prompted dating among unmarried boys and girls, and promoted this behavior through dating/relationship advice. Besides dating advice, a common message is circulated to impress a girl that may gradually include casual sex. It promoted love and way of showing affection for girls not only in private sphere, but also public (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). The high degree of acceptance for such relations stimulated heterosexuality among male members of many societies. The same message of media can be studied from a distinct perspective, as in order to balance social mechanism, men are oppressed to develop sexuality for women or face the consequences. In addition, respect and validity of marriage are closely associated with heterosexuality, and inspired men to value girls for their social acceptance and standards. It is evident through arguments that development of heterosexuality may not be the choice for men or could be compulsion for them to match the social expectations and social norms (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). The heterosexual society created huge socio-psychological barriers for men and forced them to think about women, when it came to douse their sexual desires. This is because; the love for the same gender has yet to be acknowledged by the society in the same way as for women. As a result of this, under heterosexualization, men see a gradual and steady departure from attraction towards other males and are forced to accept a constant contact with females (Worthington, Savoy & Dillon, 2008). This creates a different psychological state, which can be described with the help of two different key attributes; male aggression and elimination of male attraction.

Effect on Heterosexualization on Society

Heterosexuality is the sexual affection with someone of the opposite sex and thus, relationship of heterosexualization is treated as normative discipline in terms of social and cultural norms (Halsall, 2013). However, heterosexuality is not truly adopted by people in society as they have rejected defined rules of sexuality, and followed immoral identities or have true belief in homosexuality. In the modern west, anti-man process has marked heterosexualization by unjust severity as its ultimate motive is to destroy the natural living style of different genders, including both male and female. In the same context, effect of heterosexualization on society reflects that heterosexuality is anti-nature, which turns natural traits of human being superfluous. This have in turn, badly affected male and female positions in society.

The inclusion of heterosexualization has badly affected human kind in diverse ways. On one hand, it is responsible for population explosion, while on the other hand, it results in environmental degradation. As a result of this, the level of human population has become unsustainable, and natural imbalance has put human life in a threatening condition. Natural attributes of human tendency have also altered due to their involvement in heterosexualization. The social bonding has also weakened due to this problem as it is leads to the formation of nuclear family and breaking joint families. The concept of heterosexualization is unstable in nature, and it is the illusion that has negative impact on social settings (Ripper, 2009). This process symbolizes freedom of man, and reflects privileges given to them in society that they use for their enjoyment and pleasure through ignorance of its extreme impact on social values and beliefs (Meyer, 2008).

In this context, it is generalized that though heterosexuality is highly embedded practice and is deep rooted in society, it is considering its negative aspects and seems highly essential for keeping natural balance in society. The other negative/harmful effect of heterosexuality is the increased number of divorce cases. Due to this, career of women is ruined to a large extent as it induces responsibility of nurturing children alone as a single parent. Heterosexuality also results in weakening the marriage institution and/or spoiling joint families. It is critiqued that society should promote environment, where people are free to express their feeling, and involve in sexuality without any external pressure and/or social obligations. Such initiatives would help in lessening partial freedom in favor of male members in society as it would result in keeping strong ties in terms of male-female bonds (Cowling and Reynolds, 2004; Chan, 2013).

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339–363.

Chan, P. (2013). The protection of sexual minorities. New York: Routledge.

Cowling, M., & Reynolds, P. 2004. Making Sense of Sexual Consent. England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Denmark, F., & Paludi, M. A. (2008). Psychology of Women: A Handbook of Issues and Theories. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Halsall, P. (2013). A History of Heterosexuality. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/hethist.asp

Meyer, E. J. (2008). A Feminist Reframing of Bullying and Harassment: Transforming schools through critical pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 43(1), 33-48.

Mohr, J. J. (2008). Heterosexual Identity and the Heterosexual Therapist: An Identity Perspective on Sexual Orientation Dynamics in Psychotherapy. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from http://www.sagepub.com/thomas2e/study/articles/section6/Article99.pdf

Ratele, K., & Duncanm N. (2003). Social Psychology: Identities and Relationships. NY: Juta and Company Ltd.

Ripper, M. (2009). Lesbian parenting through donor insemination: Implications for the hetero-normative family. Gay & Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 5(2), 81-93.

Worthington, R. L., Savoy, H. B., & Dillon F. R. (2008). Heterosexual Identity Development: A Multidimensional Model of Individual and Social Identity. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from http://www.sagepub.com/thomas2e/study/articles/section6/Article98.pdf