What's Wrong With Heterosexuality?

Well, let's see if we lose any sleep. What's wrong with heterosexuality and heterosexuals?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They're not gay enough.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some get pretty close.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you know?

 

Nothing.

 

The problem with heterosexuals is that a substantial number harbor latent resentment, fear and loathing for homosexuals and other members of the lgbtq community. Many heterosexuals openly express these feelings through word and deed - even trying, and in some cases succeeding, to enforce their hatred and phobia through force of law.

In a nutshell, that's what is wrong with heterosexuals. You shouldn't have to look far to find an example of such - Bowser...

 

Nothing. Much better chance of getting pregnant, but as long as you take care to avoid that . . . .

 

I disagree, I still think the answer is nothing.
Anyone can be a bigot or an asshole, no matter their gender, religion or sexual orientation. Just like anyone can be a good person.

 

They transmit the overwhelming majority of STDs. They burden the environment with children. They drive larger vehicles leading to more deaths on the road.

 

A gentleman likes gay. So what's wrong with the gentleman ?

A Muslim/Hindu: Because the gentleman doesn't like lady/girl.

***** : If you feel it's not right then it is wrong with the gentleman

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You name it. As the traditional or commonly selected orientation -- as the once glorified representative of human beings -- heteros accordingly exemplify that particular bipedal mess. It was a straight couple that first poked God in the eye and got themselves and their future descendants kicked out of a vegan's utopia.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Their competitive mating rivalries and nesting urges, and over-elaborate courting rituals, generate skyrocketing standards which inflate egos prone to violence and bullying. There's a predilection for open-ended property acquisition and starting wars as compensation for age decline in physical appearance and bodily function.

They belong to strange cults, modify themselves in barbaric ways (tattoos, piercings, etc) and have bizarre lifestyles (including marrying relatives, incest with their children), commit adultery / cheat, get intoxicated, and spread social diseases. As the dominant majority, they invented prejudice and bigotry, etc.

They clobber the world up with overpopulation, with the resulting drain on resources. They're unreliable at contraceptive practices in their early years, and not very voluntarily prone to being neutered at an age when it would truly make a difference.

Just randomly throw a rock somewhere on the Map of Flaws and there's two opposite gender symbols to blame for bringing it into the world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I suspect that you thank its a choice... an if so... did you choose to be heterosesual.???

 

Is it possible that making babies takes mass from inside the Earth and onto the crust thus cooling the core faster which would lead to ozone depletion?

 

And they invented solar power. And they started the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders. And they were responsible for air bags, higher efficiency standards for cars and the Clean Air Act. And a lot of them bike to work.

Like any other group - some are good, some are bad.

 

Is this a real thread, or some type of troll bait?

I think anyone without any type of extreme bias brought upon by anger with one side or another, or any type of agenda....there is nothing wrong.

Anything you find wrong with one can almost always be wrong with the other.

 

The title of the thread should have read: Are babies inherently bad?

 

When someone says it's a choice, I ask them if they could choose to be gay.

Seriously, I don't know anyone who can choose who they are attracted to.

 

Naughty Bits, and Other Notes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

click|words|music.​

Actually, you'll probably gain some; the psychoanalysis addressing any real context of that question° is large, complex, and tedious. The upshot is that it has to do with sexual behavior, so there are a lot of (ahem!) "naughty bits".

I use that phrase to make a point, too.

Naughty.

The connection of sexuality and negative sentiment is going to be really, really important in that analysis.

Here's a fun one: Masculinity and the relationship 'twixt belligerence and arousal per testosterone.

Have fun with that one. Gay men do.

The challenge in this case is separating a certain range of outcomes into their proper classification as customary or biological. Denigration of the goal one pursues―a heterosexual man both wants and denigrates another as a "pussy"―is customary; dropping acid and humping the knothole in a tree is biological, kind of like watching male cats and dogs, at the consummation of the hunt, occasionally engage sexual displays with their kills.

Psychoanalyzing the results where biology and custom produce offspring?

Yeah. Have fun stormin' the castle.

It's one thing to say it doesn't have to be this way; the application of custom or biology in the context of, "What's wrong with heterosexuals?" ought to be obvious. There are certain "problems" about heterosexuals that are not necessarily inherent, but, rather, produce of societal cohesion and its requisite ritual or customary organization. Human priorities are often inherently askew when applied in a collective or societal context; there is a fundamental circumstantial disagreement between interests oriented toward either self or collective. One of the most fascinating tales to be discerned in the human story is the slow communal evolution of that basic relationship 'twixt self and collective.

I actually like the phrasing of the question, and not simply for its futility. Statistically speaking heterosexuality sets the normative baseline for humanity. If we restrict our human consideration to sexuality, the problem with heterosexuality is that it presents a miserable human condition.

The question of custom and biology looms: What portion of "what's wrong with heterosexuality" is actually inherent, and how does that range function and express within the customary?

That is to say, what part is heterosexuals themselves, and what part is recursively symptomatic of the society they have built?

'Tis something of a mystery, but not impenetrable. It's a matter of will and consent; one must be willing to penetrate, and consent to being penetrated―the metaphor works out almost absurdly well.
____________________

Notes:

° cf., Brown, Norman O.. Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.

 

What does heterosexuality means ?

 

'Tis something of a mystery, but not impenetrable. It's a matter of will and consent; one must be willing to penetrate, and consent to being penetrated―the metaphor works out almost absurdly well.

So how does a female penetrates ?