Mutually Negative Dialectics, & Cisgender Masculine Heterosexuality

There is an ancient archetype of reproductive sex in the human species. This is vaginal penetration by a penis. In mutually negative dialectics, each cisgender sex (masculine and feminine) is defined by what the other is not: i.e. the penetrator has its opposite in the penetratee (neologism for person penetrated). The penetrator is the masculine and the penetratee is the feminine. Each play their dialectical sex role in genetic-biological reproduction, and is a part of the performative ‘becoming a man’ through penetrating and ‘becoming a woman’ through being penetrated: a man is not penetrated, and a woman does not penetrate, as this would run counter to their archetypical sex role needed for (bio-genetic) reproduction of self.

I argue there is also an ancient archetype of sex which is psycho-evolutionarily linked to and informs recreational sex at the level of the socio-symbolic unconscious: sex as, at least, symbolic reproduction of self. This can be queered, but I argue that it can have sexual and emotional consequences for heterosexual men.

As consequence of this, regarding heterosexual men, it may assume and adopt the archetypical role of the feminine to be sexually penetrated. Thus, I argue that heterosexual men should consider this before agreeing to be sexually penetrated. Whilst we have the capacity to subvert archetypes and consent (liberal consent to penetration: see my blog post on liberal consent versus structural consent https://henrywilloughbyssocialjusticeblog.com/2021/05/11/liberal-consent-versus-structural-consent/) to being penetrated, preserving the reproductive role of the masculine may be the most healthy expression in sexual exchange for heterosexual men, at the level of sexual-symbolic reproduction of the self, at the level of the unconscious.

For homosexual men, the archetype becomes queered and subverted – even totally queered. This is an individual’s choice. However, I argue that heterosexual men may relinquish sexual-symbolic power when agreeing to be penetrated, since hetero sex may maintain a close affinity for and with the archetype. Heterosexual sex has an archetype attached to it, whereas homosexual or transsexual sex has departed from the archetype, manifesting new meanings, however, it may still be close to reproduction of self as enjoyed in sex when parties are equal (not sexually subordinated). This – sex as close to reproduction of self, can itself be queered (and even totally queered) and enjoyed in this way.

For those not wishing to depart from, queer (in part or totally), or subvert the archetype, I suggest considering the residual power of the archetype, which may be sexually-symbolically invoked given the context at hand, when contemplating consenting to being sexually penetrated if you are a cisgender heterosexual man!