The currently pervasive idea is that it is natural that men and women behave heterosexually.

That idea is used to manipulate people's actions and reactions. But it is not true.

Men and women are naturally homosexual. That truth is heavily turned upside down by 'society' in order to favor women's continuing control over men. Outrageous, but worth exploring.

In modern times, society (a hidden matriarchy ) shows little of its real face behind its current disguise. Matriarchy disguises itself as its opposite, which it calls patriarchy. It pretends men are in control of what's most important to men, when the truth is that women are. This is the longest ongoing deception in human history. Heterosexuality pretends that it is natural while homosexuality is unnatural, when precisely the opposite is true. How can that be? One evidence that homosexuality is natural is the fact that 'society' (speaking for whose benefit?) has to constantly work so hard to ban, banish and--if necessary--kill people whose actions can be defined as homosexual. Men are especially targeted. Why? If the natural tendency towards same-sex pleasuring wasn't there, 'society' wouldn't have to work so hard to prevent or exterminate same-sex activities. Again, who benefits from these efforts at prevention and extermination of homosexual pleasuring? Obviously, their competitors. But who are these competitors?

All things being equal, men understand and get along better with men every day of the week. Women understand and get along better with other women every day of the week. But this 'rule' breaks down in the area where there is sexual competition--of men over women and of women over men. Wouldn't that in itself prove that it's really heterosexuality that is natural?

Heterosexuality is not a natural relationship but a female-created system, which seems to be mutual exploitation and satisfaction. That exploitation appears to be mutual because it that takes two different but interconnected forms. But the exploitation is really mostly one-sided, not mutual at all.

First, it's hard to deny that women use sex with men as a means of accumulating the things of this world with minimal effort, minimal short and long-term inconvenience and minimal danger to themselves. A woman here or there may clamor to hunt or go to war or into coal mines, but women want men to run the risks and bring back things for them. Men fight wars with other men--kill and die--over the things of this world. What drives them?

Men work, invent and accumulate the things of this world to get sex from women, who inevitably expect something tangible to be exchanged for that fleeting sexual moment. Women are reluctant to provide men with sex unless some exchange helps her amass more of the things of this world.

Historically, men are inventors and creators and warriors while women are not. Why? Men need to be. The female link has been admitted all along in the truth that 'necessity is the mother of invention.' Men--defined by women as over-sexed-- have been convinced by women that women-- only women--have what any real man wants--what's called, among other things, the pussy. Men must believe in and be loyal to this god with many names. This god and only this god. The pussy, nothing else. Men are convinced (by woman-controlled society) that to get access, even temporarily, men must bring something that the women wants. What women want is now and then a man's penis. Women know they can trick men into giving much more in exchange for fleeting contact with it. Traditionally:

--A man lacks/wants pussy, not much more. He gives himself everything else. We are told he wants pussy much more than any woman wants dick. So what she has biologically is over-valued because he has been taught that (by women). What he has biologically is under-valued because he has been taught that (by women). He is expected by society (by women) to compensate her with things. More and more things.

--A woman desires things, maybe with a dick too, maybe not. She typically doesn't provide herself with much of anything else. What she has biologically she over-values to him. She under-values what he has biologically. So she expectes him to compensate her with things. More and more things. The sexual moment often goes to the highest bidder.

Out of that obvious inequality, favoring woman over the man, the pervasive system of heterosexual exchange that empowers women over men can begin and be perpetuated as a system of extortion. Why suffer extortion? Why not just take the pussy? Society calls that rape. The penalties are draconion. Pleasure must not be taken. It must be paid for with the things of this world. Who, practically speaking, is society. Look at who its rules favor. Men or women? The cliched stereotype (the ideology) is that it overwhelmingly favors men in all the important ways. Important to whom?

Look at the facts. Rape laws are designed to guarantee that men are forced to take part in the women's system of exchange. Anti-homosexuality laws also force men to accept the heterosexual system of exchange. People pretend that these laws were created by men to be used by men against men. But who really benefits from such laws? Men? Not in the broad view of things or the narrow view. If men came up with such laws on their own, they were acting against their own interests. Limiting themselves in ways that they surely have no interest in. How could that happen? What appears to be patriarchy is really matriarchy in disguise. So, how does the heterosexual system of exchange favor women, not men?

The exchange seems to be mutually exploitative but it is not. That system favors the woman, not the man. A woman can and will trade the man's temporary pleasure for whatever tangible things the man has to offer, whether it's cash, a credit card, a bag of groceries or a promise of marriage, or marriage itself. Unless it's rape, the woman always defines the terms of the exchange, to her satisfaction, bidding high and settling for whatever things she wants to settle for--or not. What, if any, control does a man have in this situation?

Whatever those things are, at the end of that exchange, the man no longer has them. She does. Also at the end of the exchange she has exactly what she has when she started: her pussy. In fact, more, but not less. It's the man who always ends up with less, because that's the way it's set up.He gets what's called a 'piece of ass. He can never get the whole thing. He can trade for brief access to it, but she still has it when the moment is over. And will always have it. And trade for it. For contact with her body, he has traded something tangible and relatively permanent for something barely tangible and fleeting. At the end, she still has her body and the potential for trading it again, and again and again for things. While he--unless he is very wealthy--must start all over, working to accumulate more things to trade for contact with a woman. That's the truth that the engagement ring and the wedding ring really represent. Something for nothing. In the heterosexual system between men and women, exploitation is mutual and endlessly along the same lines.

Given these facts, it is in men's interest to make sure they accumulate many things of this world, preventing--as much as they can--women from being able to independently amass goods, since that would mean that women would be even less likely to want to trade for sex. Traditionally, of course, marriage has been the woman's primary tool for long-term exploitation of men's need for sex, where the things of this world can be accumulated endlessly. Marriage is the contract most meant to be broken. Marriage has guaranteed that she can now keep accumulating things even if there is no further exchange. How often does the man find that once she has legal right to all or half of his things, that the woman is no longer interested in trading.

He is expected to help her level of excitement high as she accumulates more things from the mall, but access to her body does not increase with such accumulations but actually drops off more and more until there is no contact. Or she allows it intermittently, but her new levels of disinterest in the exchange are so obvious that it could kill any but the most stubbornly blind erections.

Either way, if there was really justice, the marrige would be automatically dissolved because the quid pro quo implied in the original contract has been violated. Remember, traditionally, the consumation of the sex act is enough to seal a marrage contract for good. And the lack of consumation is enough to nullify the marriage contract. So how is that the end of the basic exchange of sex for things and things for sex does not automatically end the marriage? Obviously it's because, as every man knows, that is acceptable to 'society.' So, for whom does so-called 'society' speak. Who are the rules set up to benefit. Certain not the men. Again, the hidden matriarchy shows its power.

It's assumed that the woman's right to accumulate things goes on regardless of whether she keeps fulfilling her part of the marriage bargain: that he will limit his sexual acts to her, in exchange for endless access to her body. Why would any man totally give up sexual freedom unless it was because he expected--in exchange--endless sexual access? But no. It's expected that he will endless keep providing things

Some would say that 'society' must prevent or exterminate homosexuality simply because there must be reproduction for society to continue to exist. And only heterosexuality creates those conditions. Ridiculous. Look at all of the laws that currently are pro-heterosexual and anti-homosexual. How hard would it be to enact laws that require a certain level of reproduction and care-giving, to guarantee reproduction and continuation of the 'race.'

But that would expose just how anti-freedom the current laws are and how they serve the pervasive ideology of heterosexuality that exploits men. The ideology of heterosexuality tricks or forces pleasure-seeking men away from other men and into a life-long subservience to one or more of those thing-accumulating women. Society (now revealed as the hidden matriarchy) tricks or forces men from childhood into believing that women are the only possible source of pleasure for a real man. Homosexuality is ridiculed by women from childhood. ("You don't find me attractive? Are you queer or what?")

Masturbation is also ridiculed by woman as unmanly. ('You're a jerk-off') In other words, woman recognize that when a male seeks pleasure through other men or through masturbation, that is a threat to the system because it undercuts the female's monopoly power to be a male's sole source of pleasure--but if and only if he has something she wants, now or later.

The heterosexual system is monopolistic because it intends to always create and maintain a situation where the male's sexual demand is kept high through a variety of stimulations, but where outlets for that desire are severely restricted and the supply kept under the control of females as much as possible.

What about pornography. Doesn't it give men pleasure in a way that women don't control? By far, most porn serves the heterosexual system. The images stimulate desire for women and only women. How many porn films show men having sex with women and with men? The women whose naked or semi-naked images excite men are not charity volunteers. Women benefit financially merely by taking off their clothes, totally or partially, and showing or teasing their bodies to men.

Who pays? Women? No, men. Women take off their clothing( things of this world) in exchange for other things of this world, but give up nothing tangible themselves in that exchange. A man looks and pays because women know that men will pay to look. One reason why women's clothing exists in the Western world is so that men have to pay to see it come off. Women just put their clothing back on and charge to take them off again. Sexually explicit pornography is even more of a rip-off for men and yet works perfectly in conjunction with the heterosexual system of exploitation. Women get paid by men even when women fake pleasure--as wives, prostitutes, in movies--where-ever. Biology: a man has an orgasm and loses part of himself in the ejaculation. He can give it to her but cannot get it back. A woman has repeated orgasms and gives up nothing to anyone by doing of it.

Once men have been convinced the heterosexual system of exchange is the only natural and normal way things can be, they might try to restrict the woman's ability to gain things on her own. As she acculates more on her own, she might be LESS interested in participating in the sexual exchange at all. That's probably never true, but if the man believes it, he may act to restrict independent sources of things for women.

Why probably not true? A woman still has her basic advantages and loses none under that system whether by having a college degree, a regular job and any level of personal income. Anytime she wants, she can still do things most men can't do: get money or things for stimulating desire, even fully dressed, as in ads. Or for showing tits under clothing, or out of clothing. Or for acting interested when not, trading the vague promise of sex for marriage.

Through the hidden matriarchy, women have given themselves more and more power: to cry harassment or even rape anytime she can benefit at a man's expense. No male has such power. There is no equivalent where a man can benefit from complaining that a woman is using sex to move herself up in the business.

Heterosexuality is a system of control. It exploits men's sexual desires as the need to create more and more things of this world. This system pretends to be mutual exploitation but is one-sided, designed to favor women over men. It's monopolistic. It forcibly limits and suppresses any alternative sexual outlets for males that could weaken women's ability to demand exchanging things for temporary male sexual pleasure. That men involved in being alternate outlets for male pleasure are murdered is unfortunate. But those deaths are necessary to maintain women's control over the desires, attitudes and actions of men. Men also die laboring to gain more things to please women. Of course, some women are murdered by deeply frustrated men who suffer that special rage of the endlessly exploited--because no manly self-respecting alternative is allowed.

Back to Few Know || Back to 3 Roads Meet

All Rights Reserved by ChimeraQuest Publishing, 2000