It’s an interesting paradox the way in which homosociality & hegemonic masculinity operate to place ? on a moral pedestal so that even the idea of abstinence is not a
two-way street, but rather very male dominated. ? are normalized to be celibate, while the masculine project of heterosexuality is constrained by abstinence, but ?
still protect and regulate ?s sexuality. ? dually occupy the role of protector and predator. Are ? always in male possession? This seems to be constantly perpetuated, even
maintaining heterosexuality through discourse rather than practice; reaffirming hegemonic masculinity becomes discursive.
? – Women
? – Men
?? works as a means of accessing ?? ideals ➕ when it is ? onto the ?? it’s transformed into a ??? because it is so ??? in the U.S. This is largely in part due to the fact that ?? can’t actually access ?? in embodying a marginalized identity. ?? as a controlling ? is subordinated ➕ ? ➕ since the ?? interviewed didn’t use the term Mora opts out of using it in the analysis due to it’s ??? context. Although ?? ➕ ?? have parallel definitions ➕ their constructions are the same ?? exists independently while replicating ?? ideals which makes it the ??? it is. But because ?? is so inherently ??? does that make it more of a protest identity? How can we contrast that ? to the ? of it being marginalized? How could ?? be the ?? in a localized manner? Does Mora’s conscious choice to not use ?? work as a way to keep ?? from being the ??? the interviewed ?? shape themselves around?
?? -Hegemonic Masculinity(/ies)
??? -Marginalized Masculinity(/ies)
?? -Latino Community
?? -Latino Boy(s)