Heterosexuality is unnatural

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Buddha1, Jun 11, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    It's easy to misrepresent male sexuality/ gender (e.g. by making out heterosexuality to be masculine or male-male desire to be homosexual) by controlling each and every aspect of the society, by blocking people's natural instincts and by making sure that if after all these measures someone does try to speak the truth, the attempt is promptly dealt with so that the truth never comes out or if it does, it is ignored.

    But the fact that everything is so heavily controlled tells the entire story.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    It's ironic that men go against their own nature and hurt themselves in order to preserve their social manhood (straighthood in case of a heterosexual society!). But it is the same men who so devoutedly enforce these pressures of social masculinity (especially those about exaggerating one's sexual need for women and denying one's sexual need for men) on each other.

    This (sexual desire for women/ sexual apathy for men) is not the real test of masculinity. If only men would stop running mindlessly to get that social power from the heterosexual society, stop and think for a while. They don't have to do it. They don't have to harm themselves and others. They don't have to depend upon these silly criterias for their masculinity. Because social masculinity is not real masculinity. It's up to them to change the rules. Take the right to define who is a man away from the WOMEN. They don't have a clue about what manhood is.They will give social masculinity on a platter to those who serve them and make a fool out of men in the process.

    Make your own rules. Let MEN decide what constitutes manhood. Depend on your natural masculinity for achieving social power -- don't look for short cuts -- and thereby stop being vulnerable to social manipulation. Compete with other men on the basis of real masculine qualities not the artificial ones propagated by the society. There are no dearth of the real masculine qualities which have for long taken a back seat making lesser men out of all of us. Some of these truly masculine attributes are:
    Courage, strength, stamina, character, self-control, honesty, fairness, defending the weak, playing by the rules, honour, reliability, risk-taking, being a man of words, socially responsible, being principled, self-respect, politeness, and the power to bond with/ love men.

    Demand your own space in the society. Demand the right to grow up as men by learning to relate with and bond with other men. Don't let the society deny that space to you in the name of gender equality. Gender equality does not mean sameness. And it does not mean that your right to grow up with other boys in boys-only spaces is immaterial and is taken away. Merging social spaces of men and women is a social ploy to heterosexualise the society in order to benefit a few. Heterosexual spaces are anti-men, and they badly affect man's ability to bond and relate with another man. If it is denied to boys, they will never learn to be true men. They will be what women want them to be --- heterosexual wimps who are good enough only to bond with and serve women!

    As far as sex or romance with women is concerned men can always do it when the right time comes --- after they learn to be men --- when it is time to get married.

    Don't let men sacrifice their masculinity for the sake of heterosexualisation. For heterosexualisation does not benefit the society at all. It does not benefit men. It only gives disproportionate power to women and in the long run is not beneficial to women either. We should strive for women's liberation and for men's too, but heterosexualisation is definitely not the answer.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Social masculinity vs Natural masculinity

    Most men are born with a natural masculinity -- which is in a crude and underdeveloped form. This natural masculinity needs to be cultivated and developed (this is where relating and bonding with other boys/ men is extremely important!). But the society denies men the opportunity to develop their natural masculinity. In its absence men become dependant on the society which gives them 'social masculinity' But in return it manipulates and controls their behaviour, especially their sexual behaviour.

    Social masculinity is a fake mascuilnity, a superficial social power which is granted by the society when a man conforms to certain critical norms (especially concerning the man's sexual behaviour) laid down by the society. Although superficial, this power can be intense and extremely intoxicating. It's easily earned, in that the man does not need any natural masculinity to earn it -- although one must suppress one's true masculinity which has severe hidden costs for men. Once addicted to this easy and intoxicating power it is difficult for men to give up dependance on it. Men would go to any extent to get and retain this power. It is a survival thing for them.

    In a heterosexual society, the social mascuilnity is known as 'straighthood', and heterosexuality is added as a precondition for being straight (socially masculine!).

    Homosexual men and true heterosexual men on the other hand don't have much use for social masculinity --- since they have a significant natural femininity within them. This natural femininity, is also a great human force just like natural masculinity --- though its powers are different than that of natural masculinity.

    A heterosexual society is anti man, anti-masculine man to be specific and it has terrible antagonism towards masculinity. Although, images of negative masculinity are celebrated by the society symbolically, it is practically banned from the social spaces. And when positive masculinity is suppressed in masculine men, there suppressed masculinity is vented out in extremely negative and self-destructive ways. A hatred/ denial for male-male sexual need is part of that self-destruction of postive natural masculinity.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Buddah1,

    I have debated with you on your other thread about heterosexuality in nature, and I agree with you on that count.

    Now, you are suggesting that we adopt, or at least question our society's predominant sexuality in favor of what is established in nature, which is nothing.

    Unfortunately, you are overgeneralizing your perception of heterosexual men, because I am one, and I do not fit your description of their behavior and ideals. You say that men tend to do this and that, but I question how subjective your research is to the society in which you are in.

    So, how many societies have you studied?
    In each society, how many men?
    In each man, did you first ask their supposed sexuality...were they leaning towards feminate, or did you stack the study group with an equal amount of strong "heterosexuals"?

    Have you found a natural society?
    What impact does it make on their society, when they live naturally?

    If you expect me to accept any arguments in this thread, you are going to have to prove it and not speculate based on your own perception of the men you meet. The fact that I exist, am a heterosexual, am masculine, and do not fit your perception of heterosexuals, proves that people like me exist in society. And I naturally became heterosexual, not by social pressure or influence, but by experience of homosexuality as a child.
     
  8. Frisbinator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    283
    Peeew what's that smell? It smells like someone whose overly prideful trying to make a point based on shoddy foundations and overly complicated reasoning! Man, that smells awful, someone open a window and let some logic in!
     
  9. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Yes, we have not yet discussed about what is established in nature (not that I have any doubts, but it still needs to be proved here). It’s easier to find out what is not established than it is to determine what is established……But on second thoughts, if we were sincere, if our brains were not washed, if we did not have ulterior motives including considerations of social masculinity and that of religion, if we did not feel so strongly about the sexual label we have identified since childhood and if we had not come far from our natural masculinities --- it would be the simplest thing to know what nature wants from us.

    This may be too much to ask for, but there is still something else that we can do. We can stop, in fact roll back all the repressive measures we have adopted to keep certain forms of love outside the mainstream society. We can stop all the heterosexual propaganda, stop giving state/ social/ media patronage to heterosexuality. We can roll back the heterosexualisation of the society. We can remove the division of the society on the lines of sexual orientation and divide the society on the lines of sex and gender as we know that to be the natural order of things. We can stop denigrating and homosexualising male-male sexual desire and pretending that straight men are incapable of needing other men for sexual intimacy. We can accept, value and honour femininity in males as a unique and valuable human characteristic --- and not deny its relationship with male-female love, just like we highly regard masculinity in women. We can stop the pressures on men (and women) to force them to adopt heterosexual attitudes, behaviours and lifestyles --- unless we can prove their usefulness to the society. If we were to do all this the people will behave a lot more closer to their natural needs and nature. That would be the real freedom, not the sham being practised by the west today.

    As long as we live in a highly controlled society we will never know what the nature meant us to be. A highly controlled society which pretends successfully to be an open and fair society, and carries on its oppression in an extremely sophisticated and inconspicuous manner is more dangerous than those like the Islamic societies which are at least openly violent and oppressive. In the latter case you know who your enemy is and can one day put up a resistance. Here you don’t even realise that your open and free society that you cherish is on the sly making your life hell.

    I remember, in the beginning while taking my workshops with young guys, broaching the subject of male-male sexual need was always an uncomfortable job. Men don’t talk about it. I remember the moment I would mention it the otherwise babbling class of young and energetic guys would go into pin drop silence. A few shifting of legs and then someone would narrate an extremely nasty experience --- like how he slapped an older man who was trying to get cosy with him. Boys are trained to react in this manner when they have to discuss an issue like this. This statement was more like a power statement which immediately made other guys even more determined to guard their own feelings for men.

    I would talk about how all men (most) are supposed to have such feelings……and again a pin drop silence. Then one guy would very politely and firmly announce, “But brother, I don’t have any sexual feelings for men at all!”. He was a sincere guy and he made the statement so sincerely that I was sure he genuinely did not have an interest in boys. In another class, another sincere guy asked very innocently, “I don’t have any sexual interest in men at all, does that mean there is something abnormal with me?” Other guys would just keep quiet but their silence was the kind that approved of what I was saying. Some guys would enthusicastically shake their heads in approval. A rare person would say something positive (and I couldn’t help notice that often he was the most macho guy in the pack!).

    I would have been rattled with these vehement denials if I hadn’t seen the world before bringing up the subject with the guys. During next few years, as I kept in touch with the boys, I was amazed to see that every one of the boys that had volunteered the information that they were not interested in men, without the asking, including the ones that had claimed to have reacted violently to such advances --- started showing their sexual interest in men --- in various forms. Most of them included indirect signs, including a few who tried to made advances to me, but two of them were quite vocal. The first guy who had said he did not have any interest in men surprisingly talked about how he goes to the internet cafes and watches pictures of anal sex.

    In many cases, what has happened is that the boys who had vehemently denied interest in men, had suppressed their sexual interest in men with great difficulity, and my approval of such feelings had interrupted with their efforts. Many just accepted their feelings in the end.

    There have been innumerable cases of men who have claimed to be violent to men because these men made advances towards them --- who have gone on to seek sex/ relationships with men. Some were already in such relationships. This includes a case where a straight man almost battered his ‘gay’ (when I say ‘gay’ I mean feminine) friend to death when he made advances towards him. If you listen to their story of violence towards men or their denial --- it will always be because they did not like the person who approached them, and not because the person was a man. E.g., they may have hated an ugly woman who approached them in a similar fashion. Often these guys who allegedly make advances are old or ugly or feminine (the last one is not really a negative feature, but many straight men consider it so!).

    By now it was clear to me that men will even have sex with each other but if asked they will always say that they have no such interest. I have counselled scores of men, most (but not all) of them gay (by gay I mean meterosexuals/ not straight) --- over a period of years –who have been in relationships with straight men who have had intense relationships with them, but have constantly denied having any interest in men. E.g., this straight guy was in a relationship with a ‘gay’ identified guy (my counsellee) for more than 5 years. When his marriage got fixed (that’s when the person came to me) the straight one told the ‘gay’ guy curtly, “I was never really interested in you. I was doing it only because you wanted me to!” The guy was heartbroken. The straight guy, before he left the gay man for his wife, wanted to make sure that he has his social masculinity intact.

    I had read studies and observations by others that pointed to the fact that those who vehemently oppose male-male sex(ual desires), often turn out to harbour strong feelings for men themselves. Feelings that often they cannot deal with. It is what social hostility and brainwashing does to men.

    Even after knowing men inside out, when I hear a man emphatically say he has no sexual interest in men (I don’t ask such pointed questions usually!) I am almost tempted to believe him. They say it so sincerely. Someone who doesn’t understand this aspect of men will most definitely believe them right away, and accuse me of being motivated in not accepting their denial as genuine.

    It is easy to understand how this denial converts into a heterosexual identity once the soicety is heterosexualised and the heat on male-male bonding is intensified and the society is divided between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    It is in the light of this that I don’t think talking about our personal cases is such a good idea while conducting this discussion. Because, what men say and what men are --- seldom match --- and its not their fault. Maybe you and C2o are genuine exceptions but then my experience tells me to take such denials with a pinch of salt. Afterall, if I start accepting every guy that comes on this board and say he is genuinely heterosexual --- and I accept them as exceptions, then we will have an almost 100% rate of exceptional cases.

    It would be better if we look at trends or talk about things in general or talk about non-personal cases.

    The basic nature, instincts and needs of men are always the same, where ever they may live on this earth. The differences arise due to our cultures. The basic nature of men that I have discovered in my society by looking beneath the social pressures and masks, will be the same everywhere. What will vary is the kind or degree of pressures that men face. These differing pressures will account for the different outward behaviour in our populations.

    The difference between our societies are that the pressures in your society is several times harsher on men. The nature of our pressures are the same. Only the degrees are different. It is no wonder that the men are so particular about defending one's heteroseuxal status. This is something that homosexual men will never understand.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2005
  10. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Isn't it interesting how some men who find it difficult to relate with men's issues, and who don't want to deal with its complications, enthusicastically talk about, relate with and support women's rights issues --- almost instinctively.

    Heterosexuals have that inner thing with women.
     
  11. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    I think most of your queries here would have been answered in my earlier post.

    I have studied many societies through documented accounts. I have studied my society and the western society deeply.

    I have covered more than 50,000 men in my own society. Not a lot in the western society though (about 300 men in all these years) . Most of the information I get about the west is from movies/ media or from people I meet in conferences, internet discussion forums, etc. (and if you believe them the west is full of strong heterosexuals).

    But what should be noteworthy is that in the past 6 years or so, my society has undergone a lot of forced heterosexualisation, after the US media was allowed in. And I have seen how the situation are changing for men here. Our society is slowly adopting the division on the basis of sexual orientation --- and the difference between our society and yours is fast reducing. But still, the only people who identify with identities based on sexual orientation are English educated queens who identify with the ‘homosexual’ label. The heterosexual identity has yet few takers --- who live in extremely westernised and elite environments.

    My observations/ analysis says the strong ‘heterosexuals’ are not true heterosexuals (they may be capable or willing to enter into male-female relationships, but that is not what heterosexuality is only about!)


    No, but I’ve read about them. Some such societies exist in the Papa new guinea.
    What impact does it make on their society, when they live naturally?
    I guess their population is really in control. They live in tandem with nature. They have not made such enormous material gains as the modern societies, but they are much happier than us.

    Like I said, let’s avoid a personalised discussion.
     
  12. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    I have closely followed men who have fallen in love with women and had had relationships with them. Especially as time goes by.

    It is not logically possible to remain a macho guy yet be in a lovey-dovey, sensitive relationship with women and nurture children with her. That can only happen in movies --- but you know that they are just acting. That's why the ideals of the heterosexual society for men have shifted to meterosexuality, and the femininised male who is extra sensitive to the needs of women.

    While the ideals of women have become the sexually aggressive (in my society whom you call heterosexual women, we call whores!), masculinised and in control (i.e. over men), independant women.

    Of course many macho guys in a heterosexual society make relationships with women. But that is more for the social power than for the sake of the relationship. The relationship is often to show the world.
     
  13. c20H25N3o Shiny Heart of a Shiny Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    In a professional capacity? Under what conditions have you been permitted to closely follow them?

    Thanks

    c20
     
  14. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    (for a moment I thought it was a joke!)

    Here I'm talking about people around me. My relatives, friends, co-workers. Once you start analysing and determining patterns you don't restrict yourself to your work, but to everything that goes on around you. I discuss these issues with people, observe them.

    Of course, my work as a counsellor helps a great deal too.
     
  15. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    You guys seem to be unnecessarily worried about my professional credentials, or the source of my information or my methodology.

    Is that an escape route to avoid discussing my assertions? Or to distract? Few guys have cared to discuss the subject matter – but have talked about things right and left.

    My assertions are nothing but simple truths which you don’t need to be a professional or a genius to know. Most men know these things at the back of their mind, but in fragments. They have never imagined that these things can be discussed --- these are usually taken for granted, as sacrifices one has to make on the way to become a man ‘socially’, to receive social manhood --- in a heterosexual society --- to become straights (mind you 'straights' --- and not 'heterosexual'. Heterosexuality has value only as long as the society makes it a precondition for straighthood). These are also taboo subjects and the negative consequences of discussing them are high. Plus, men have been extremely disempowered to discuss them. Therefore men have continued to suffer in silence and isolation.

    All I have done --- and this is because the unique opportunities I received to study men (and I don’t mean a formal study as in college --- for god’s sake!) as individuals and as a group --- from the innermost core of male community to a position from where I could get a perspecttive, + I have shown a bit of courage (ok, a lot of courage!) --- so, all I have done is to put these simple fragmented and banned truths out in the open --- consciously as men’s important issues, putting together the fragments to present a complete picture that men can readily relate to. It is an attempt to recognise and acknowledge what has been happening with men for a loooong time now.

    I‘ve received a wonderful response from men, especially the youth in my country. Men in the west are several times more disempowered. --- so I don’t know how far my attempts will be of help.

    The story of man’s oppression in most parts of the civilised world is the same. It all started with efforts to bind and control his sexual energy towards reproduction. The western heterosxual society has taken this oppression to its extremity.

    I request you guys to examine my statements for their own worth. Take this as an opportunity to stop and evaluate your own society and how it deals with men/ people. Not as heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals, but as men!

    I promise to be scientific for the most part. 'Scientific' does not necessarily inlucde external proofs -- though I will make that available where ever required/ possible. 'Scientific' means that the discussion will be based on logical analysis and deduction for the most part. A reasonable speculation where there is no way to know the exact truth is well within the limits of science.

    But sometimes you must use your heart, and leave science aside!
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2005
  16. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Here's another post from the thread "Heterosexuality is queer" which is relevant here:

    Duendy,

    Do you think these guys really care for 'external proofs' or 'degrees'? Then you have not understood these guys at all. As you've seen, you can show them any number of degrees or proofs, it will never be enough for them. E.g., Bagemihl is discounted as 'gay' and thus his science not being admissible, while Johan Roughgarden is dismissed as being a transexual.

    You must understand their motives. The thing is that they know what I'm saying is the truth and I'm making a scientific analysis (for the most part!). There is no way they can disprove me, with all the scientific evidences in this world. Because a simple truth is greater than any number of manipulated scientific theories, and can easily scatter them to pieces.

    Therefore, they are looking for my vulnerabilities. The slightest one, and they will stick to it, and try to use it to stop me from talking so openly about the truth that has been wrapped under cover for centuries. They'll call me 'gay', question my credentials, refuse to even consider my arguments.....anything but deal with the real issue on hand. If I was not speaking the truth, do you think they would have bothered with all this effort. The first thing they would have done would have been to disprove me using simple logic.
     
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    And still another:

    You guys seem to be unnecessarily worried about my professional credentials, or the source of my information or my methodology.

    Is that an escape route to avoid discussing my assertions? Or to distract? Few guys have cared to discuss the subject matter – but have talked about things right and left.

    My assertions are nothing but simple truths which you don’t need to be a professional or a genius to know. Most men know these things at the back of their mind, but in fragments. They have never imagined that these things can be discussed --- these are usually taken for granted, as sacrifices one has to make on the way to become a man ‘socially’, to receive social manhood --- in a heterosexual society --- to become straights (mind you 'straights' --- and not 'heterosexual'. Heterosexuality has value only as long as the society makes it a precondition for straighthood). These are also taboo subjects and the negative consequences of discussing them are high. Plus, men have been extremely disempowered to discuss them. Therefore men have continued to suffer in silence and isolation.

    All I have done --- and this is because the unique opportunities I received to study men (and I don’t mean a formal study as in college --- for god’s sake!) as individuals and as a group --- from the innermost core of male community to a position from where I could get a perspecttive, + I have shown a bit of courage (ok, a lot of courage!) --- so, all I have done is to put these simple fragmented and banned truths out in the open --- consciously as men’s important issues, putting together the fragments to present a complete picture that men can readily relate to. It is an attempt to recognise and acknowledge what has been happening with men for a loooong time now.

    I‘ve received a wonderful response from men, especially the youth in my country. Men in the west are several times more disempowered. --- so I don’t know how far my attempts will be of help.

    The story of man’s oppression in most parts of the civilised world is the same. It all started with efforts to bind and control his sexual energy towards reproduction. The western heterosxual society has taken this oppression to its extremity.

    I request you guys to examine my statements for their own worth. Take this as an opportunity to stop and evaluate your own society and how it deals with men/ people. Not as heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals, but as men!

    I promise to be scientific for the most part. 'Scientific' does not necessarily inlucde external proofs -- though I will make that available where ever required/ possible. 'Scientific' means that the discussion will be based on logical analysis and deduction for the most part. A reasonable speculation where there is no way to know the exact truth is well within the limits of science.
     
  18. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    THE STORY OF MAN'S OPPRESSION

    At the dawn of the human civilisation, men and women lived as two distinct groups, Women’s primary drive in life was to raise children. They raised them together with other women. Sex with men was primarily meant for reproduction. Any sexual bonding/ intimacy happened only amongst women. Men, like his cousin the Chimpanzees, mated with women only occasionally, most mated a few times in their lives and many preferring not to mate at all. The primary drive of men was to bond with other men --- this bond helped them to stay together in strongly bonded groups, when otherwise their competition instinct would make them kill each other. The survival of the male group depended upon how cohesive they were. It ensured that they could find food, protect their clan from enemy gangs and it even helped in mating with the female, when the time came. Only as much procreation happened as the nature could sustain healthily --- so that humans could live without disrupting the nature.

    Initially, (and that must have been the way for a long time) there was a group of males that did not consider itself male, so did not live in the male group --- nor did things that other men did – including bonding with other men. They either lived with the women’s group as ‘women’ and bonded with them (as in the case of sheep) or perhaps they paired off with women and lived seperately from both the women’s and men’s group (as with sea lions). They were neither men nor women. That is the closest we can get to ‘heterosexuals’ in natural times. And they were Transexuals. These men were considered two-spirited (both man and woman in the same body) and given a lot of restpect. They often practised as priests, healers, etc. Transexuals/ Heterosexuals performed an extemely important function --- that of being the bridge between two totally distinct groups of men and women.

    Being included in the man’s group was extremely important for masculine gendered men. It was a matter of life and death, for a man could not live on his own if somehow he was not included in the man’s group. Male children grew up in the women’s group till they reached adolescence. Then they were initiated into the male group. The Initiation usually included ‘tests’ that the boy had to go through. These ‘tests’ or the original ‘proofs’ of manhood tested the man’s masculinity and his ability to hunt, fight etc.

    The boy was paired off with an older youth in a marriage like ceremony which might have included rituals where the older youth put his semen into the boy which symbolically meant that he was being purified of his femininity (after spending so many years in the female group) and the entry of semen symbolised giving manhood to the boy.

    But some boys, including the ‘heterosexual’ boys could not complete the tests. The heterosexual boys were not considered boys in the first place and they were honorably exempt from the test. They had a different course in life. But masculine gendered boys who failed had it tough. They were excluded from the male group. They then lived as lesser men, which meant they had little access to community’s resources, no chance of bonding with another man and no chance of mating with a female.

    It was a thing of great honour to be included as a ‘man’ and a great dishonour to be a ‘lesser man’. This is the original concept of ‘manhood’ which later became ‘social manhood’ (and in the modern west ‘straighthood’). A man’s honour or manhood could also be lost after he proved himself as a man --- e.g. if he broke an important custom or showed cowardice in war. It was possible, perhaps, for lesser and outcast men to gain back their honour and social status when they fulfilled certain conditions, e.g., bringing the head of an enemy.

    *****************​

    At one point in the development of human civilisation, when humans started settling in far flung isolated areas, they needed to increase their population more than was possible naturally. This is the reason why a social mechanism was introduced that sought to bind men into social contracts with women (the marriage institution). Men were given several sops, which in due course of time, included ownership of ‘wife’ and ‘children’ (lineage) and easy social manhood. Eventhough the woman gave birth to the child, it was hailed as a man’s achievment. Thus, producing a son came to mean that the man had finally proved his manhood and was worthy of inclusion in the male group --- a group which had suffered a blow after the marriage institution required man and woman to live together.

    Sexual bonds between men were a great hindrance since the beginning of the marriage institution, because (a) they were extremely common, (b) they were the preferred bonds and thus stopped men from diverting their sexual energy towards women for procreation, and (b) such bonds made men powerful, and prone to being rebels/ nuisance in enforcing the marriage institution. This heralded efforts to reign in such bonds.By the time of the Greeks, male bonds were celebrated and institutionalised but only for a certain time (first half) in a man’s life. He had to perform his social duty of procreation and raising of children in the other half of his life. But the life for men was still balanced between natural needs and social duty.

    However producing a child was not the only way to prove one’s manhood (and this was the case till the modern times) and certainly did not completely replace important masculine characteristics. Procreation was especially exempted for macho/ warrior traditions where men did not have to mate with women --- in fact it was forbidden and seen as a feminising factor for men. But for ordinary men, marriage was also linked with competition between men thus increasing the importance of male-female bonds in a man’s life. Winning a bride increased a man’s honour. Then there were several punishments for not ‘marrying’ without a socially acceptable reason (acceptable reasons included: following the macho or spiritual path).. This came to include depriving the man of social manhood which meant barring him from the male community and throwing him together with lesser men. As time passed by and ‘straight’ men and women started sharing life, bringing down the difference between man and woman, the importance of feminine males (heterosexuals) decreased, and soon femininity became a redundant quality. Soon the category of lesser males --- the dust bin for rejected, dishonoured and outcaste men was combined with the third sex/ gender.

    There are two possibilities about the existence of ‘homosexuals’ of today in the ancient world. They were either exceptions amongst the transexuals or they are a result of social feminising of men (through marriage) translating into biological feminising through evolution over a long period of time (Scientists have been talking about this possibility!). But by the time of the Greeks, when sexual bonds between men was highly regulated, though still institutionalised, the third sex was allowed to have sex with men --- and we know of a special category of third sex --- the catamites who were disgraced as people who want to have receptive anal intercourse with men as an assertion of their femininity. By the time of the Greeks penetrative sex (whether with a man or woman) became the hallmark of a man, and receptive anal sex that of women and third sex.

    However, there are also evidences that from Greek times till the medieval times, the third sex had a respectable and powerful place in the society – at least in non-Christian societies. E.g. Alexander is said to have been in love with a powerful eunuch. So, it is possible that the thing about catamites could have exaggerated by writers in the Christian era who wrote about the Greek times.

    Around the Christian era, the category of lesser males was officially called the ‘third-sex’ even though they had a powerful position in the society and were considered a source of sexual gratification for men. Thus men, it was believed could have sex with men, women and the third sex. Anyone who was physically unfit to reproduce was thrown into the ‘third sex’ category. It included impotent men, hermaphrodites and eunuchs. The eunuch thing was probably initiated by transexuals who used it to rid themselves of the male identity, although men were also castrated by nobles who kept them to safeguard their harems.

    Men who refused to get married without the acceptable excuses ran the risk of being thrown into the ‘third-sex’ category (which had no place for masculine gendered men). They were assumed to be physically incapable to have sex. There was no concept of there not being a sexual interest. Marriages were never thought of as being there to fulfill sexual urges. They were there primarily to sustain reproduction. And interest or no interest, if you are capable of producing a child you must marry and prove your manhood. In later times however the focus of social manhood shifted from reproduction to a ‘capability’ to have sex with women, although producing a son was still important. In fact having a son became the final proof of being ‘capable’ to have sex with women.

    Thus masculine men who had little sexual interest in women at all, or those who had an interest in sex but no inlination to share their lives with women could either decide to force themselves to get married (it was not such a big deal though, all you needed to do was to fuck them once in a blue moon and beget a child. Once you got a son, your social manhood and honour were safe) or could choose a spiritual or (especially in case of macho men) choose a macho/ warrior tradition which required men to keep away from women. The society allowed this as a respectable excuse/ cover from marriage without running the risk of being thrown into the ‘third sex’ category. These sects of spiritual or macho traditions openly celebrated male bonds --- including sexual intimacy, although later when societies banned these feelings, the sects disguised their traditons involving male eroticism and sexual bonding.

    ********************​

    Christianity (and later Islam) changed the course of human civilisation by making man’s spiritual needs into a matter of social identity (much like what the west has done with his sexual needs today), in order to consolidate the powers that came from people’s faith in God. They needed to expand and rule the world, and thus needed to grow their population, and sexual bonds between men which were too common and acceptable in their era --- even glorified by earlier Christian sects called Gnostics/ heretics --- were a great annoyance. So they played their most potent card and brought in God to rule ‘sex between men’ as one of the gravest sins punishable by death. Earlier cultures were content with restricting male-male bonds, they did not need to wipe them off totally from the mainstream male society. By using people’s blind faith, religion now blatantly used violence to kill men, till sexual bonds between men went totally underground and/ or was restricted to a few.

    But even then the society did not make a distinction between sexual desire for men and sexual desire for women, nor did it think that men who have sexual desire for men are different and seperate than those who have sexual desire for women. Or that most men are not capabable of sexual desire for other men. In fact, they knew too well that men in general have a tendency to get sexually attached with other men. Old timers still say that if the society talks about ‘homosexuality’ (sic) positively, everyone will become a ‘homosexual’ (sic).

    In the medieval era, in some parts of the world initial attempts were made to reign in sexual bonds between men by using a weapon even more powerful than religion --- that of social manhood. Perhaps these efforts were limited to the academic/ scholarly sections which did not have a large influence. Sex with men was associated as intricately linked with the disgraced third sex (as evidenced by the book Kamsutra, although it also talks of sexual acts indulged in by two men). And though men were considered capable of indulging in sex with other men, it was considered as dishonourable for men. It seems to have a strong effect --- in those places where sexual bonds between men went underground without violence.

    In due course of time Christian societies too adopted this extremely effective strategy of controlling sex between men in the mainstream society by making it dishonourable thing and associating this desire with the third sex. The Christian societies of course used this in addition with the violent laws that forbade sex between men. Non Christian/ Islamic societies knew of no conscious effort by the society to punish sex between men. These societies just stopped acknowledging that sex between men takes place.

    But sexual intimacy between men still flourished all over the world --- although secretly, in disguise and behind the scenes --- whether because of a fear of violence or that of social dishonour. The third gender/ sex (today’s homosexuals) feared violence more, they did not care much for social manhood. But social mascullinity had a strong impact on the outward sexual behaviour or masculine (today’s straight) men. One thing that helped this was that inspite of the marriage institution, men and women still lived largely separate lives (in keeping with their nature) and male-female bonds were highly uncommon --- even though the society had started celebrating them through arts and culture. And there were plenty of social opportunities. Such intimacies could easily flourish in the guise of male friendships, as deep male friendships were still celebrated. And physical closeness between men was very common. In addition, the sects of men that exempted men from marriage were still strong, though they had hidden the erotic element in them. And in many non-Christian societies --- the noblemen were allowed to develop sexual intimacies with other men, though they were still restricted for the common man.

    *****************​

    The modern west changed all that. It all started as religion started loosing its influence and sceince took over. Religious power could no longer be used to keep men from bonding with other men. And then another new thing happened. The ancient social mechanism of male oppression (through its reward and punishment strategies to control male sexual behaviour) had given extraordinary powers/ benefits to a section of the society (including some men and women) who are minority. These ‘vested interests’* sought to consolidate this power in the new age through a process called ‘heterosexualisation’ of the society.

    The heterosexualisation of a society includes the following:

    - abolishing all male-only spaces and making them mixed gender spaces with heterosexual values.

    - Abolishing all social customs that may facilitate disguised/ behind the scenes bonding between men and enforcing heterosexual customs like dating, mixed-sex dancing, male-female social kissing, etc. Thus while man and woman can walk hand in hand in public, kiss publicly and even share a bed without eyebrows being raised, in many parts of the heterosexual world two men walking hand in hand may attract hostile cries of ‘homo’ or ‘fags’.

    - Glorifying male-female casual sex, and freeing it from the burden of procreation/ marriage.

    - Throwing all other human relations in the back ground: Male female sexual desire becomes the supreme human quality upon which the entire society is hinged. The right of the male-female couple is the supreme, superceding that even of one’s parents and siblings. Divorces and single parenthood become common as marriages are now based on shaky male-female romance rather than the social duty to raise children.

    - Homosexualisation of male-male love: The heat on male-male love is intensified, making it an unmanly quality that robs a man of his social manhood and power, and throwing it into the feminised/queer/marginalised homosexual space. Introducing the concept of ‘sexual orientation’ was one of the important tools to isolate men who still bonded with men. They abolished the traditional and natural division of men based on their gender and introduced an ‘unnatural’ division based on ‘sexual orientation’.

    - Breaking men from men: Creating a social condition where men just can’t bond with each other apart from superficially. Man stops relating with other men and is trained from the beginning to relate with women. Heterosexualisation creates a wall between men.

    - Feminising and disempowering men: Taking away men’s rights, and increasing his social masculinity pressures.

    - Giving extraordinary and exploitative powers to women: The

    * The vested interest groups include the follwing: Whether this group naturally exists among humans or has been a result of centuries of feminising of males is difficult to find out.
    - Meterosexual men:
    o True Heterosexuals: Although transexual males who are the real heterosexuals are excluded from the ‘straight’ group, men who have a strong femininity in them are a strong vested interest group. In a traditional society they risk being thrown into the ‘lesser male’ category unless femininity in men is given its due place.
    o True Homosexuals: Although, the heterosexual society treats homosexuals as second class citizens, it has given them a separate space, where they exercise a lot of control and power. They have also grown very strong politically.
    - Masculine, sexually aggressive women: There are women who are inclined to control men. For them sex and romance with men is more important in life than raising children --- which is seen as a burden. Again whether this group already exists in nature or is a creation of our environment, we will never know..
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2006
  19. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Your research is flawed because you are assuming that the basic nature of men in your society is the same everywhere, and that you understand the basic nature of men. A correct conlcusion you can make with your evidence is that the basic nature of men in your society is no heterosexual. The men in your society cannot escape their subjectivity and perception that your society has trained in them! You must prove your hypothesis that it will only differ on the degree of pressures that men face. You really need to do more research and have a control group. Your research is too incomplete, and not worthy of a sound conclusion.

    Also, you mentioned talking to "boys". How old were they?

    As I mentioned before, when I was a boy I experimented with homosexuality for a few months. No one knew anything about me, no one said it was wrong to me, I wasn't pressured by anyone to be any way, I had no internal conflict, I just enjoyed the sensations (which could explain why animals have heterosexual and homosexual relationships, and why dogs hump your leg when excited).

    I fell into heterosexuality by nature.
     
  20. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Media? Americans, did you hear that? The other countries, specifically Buddah1, depend on our media to paint an accurate picture. That is the funniest thing I've read in a long time!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You are gullible if you do not critically analyze every word the media and movies say. A false article in Newsweek, one of our most respected periodicals, could be responsible for muslim riots that resulted in deaths.

    You need to get over hear and study at least 25,000 men here and elsewhere around the world. Your studies are obviously biased to your culture.

    Your observations of 50,000 of your culture's men. You make a strong case for men in your society, Buddah1, but you cannot overgeneralize like you are and expect to have any credibility.
    If you can't see that, you are fooling yourself.

    What if you had done all your studies here in America and came to an opposite conclusion, would you be saying that the Eastern society like yours is not as nature intended? Because of your bias, I doubt you can even admit that.

    So what is the person's name that you asked if they are happy, so I can call him up and confirm your speculation?

    Buddah1, you have the evidence of many scientists around the world who can confirm that there is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature. I've looked myself at zoologists and research journals like National Geographic. But, where is your scientific evidence supporting your hypothesis that all countries male population think the same as the males in your society?

    If I did research here in America and made some valid claim about my country, like we're rich, can I assume that since we are rich that every country that is as large as we are, are rich?

    The boys are brought up differently in your country, you need to have a controlled experiment with boys from another country in the same environment as the boys in the first group.
     
  21. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Heterosexuality is unethical, immoral and harmful

    There is nothing good about heterosexuality. It has no real use for the society or the humankind. It is a burden on humans. There is no reason why the state should prop it up, glorify it, propagate it or institutionalise it.

    Heterosexual ideology is blatantly and openly oppressive, and thus unethical. It blatantly abuses science, religion and other human institutions, blocks truth from reaching people, mispropagates, and bullies those who defy it, in order to pervade every nook and corner of the society.

    Heterosexuality is also immoral in more ways than one. It is disrespectful of natural gender and sexual needs of people. It glorifies casual sex between man and woman. It is bad for procreation, raising of children and for traditional joint families……and so on.

    Heterosexuality is an artificial ideology which harms individuals and the society in myriad ways. This thread is to discuss its harmful effects.
     
  22. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    so... you prefer men?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. justagirl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    In your earlier threads you made some good points and raised some good questions, but, this thread is just as narrow-minded as the religious right claiming that homosexuality is abomination to God.

    Despite the fact that it is satire, I suspect some of the people that you may have influenced with your earlier threads are going to take issues with this thread, in effect, wiping out any good you may have done for your cause.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page