Heterosexuality is unnatural

I already like you so much that it will difficult for me to use.....what should I say.....tough words, as this discussion demands. But then I'll try my best.

By the way, the essence of my work and the series of threads on this board is to remove the factions unnecessarily and unnaturally created between men. But for that I have to clear the mess first. Bringing down heterosexuality from its self-appointed pedestal is an important first step, as I see it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is a response I posted as a reply to Hercules Rockfeller's post in a different thread. But it goes perfectly well for his and other's posts on this thread as well. Here goes:

Hercules and others of his ilk,

First things first.

I will entertain your posts only if you sincerely want to discuss, remain within the limits of civilised behaviour as required by a serious discussion board like this one and stop trying to disrupt the discussion. Remember, whether you want to prove me right or wrong, you must want to add to the discussion not disrupt/ sabotage it. This post was within the limits of such discussion, and that is why I have chosen to answer it.

Surely, all that education would have taught you decency (although humblness is not one of your forte!). Use your education and expertise to tell/ guide us lesser mortals about how and where we are wrong --- not to act like an extremist.

Now to the points that you have raised:
My theories and assertions may be outlandish, the wierdest that you have heard. I may be totally off the mark. But at least I am sincere. + I’ve been following the rules. I have put my assertions up for a debate. Afterall, this is what a discussion board is for. This means that I can easily be proved wrong especially by such knowledgable luminaries such as yourself. I regret that you have to come down to discussing issues with ordinary mortals like me, but then this is a space for commoners not an exclusive academic space. If you’re ashamed to do this don’t slum around here.

Or else, let the moderators of this site make a rule that only people with degrees in the respective fields can participate in a discussion or start a thread. And require that only statements that have been proven with wrtten/ published papers be accepted as arguments. In that case lesser mortals like me will not waste our time here.

But perhaps you would do well to remember words by Albert Einstein:
“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education”.

You don’t need to go to any college to understand life and nature --- especially the most simple truths. In fact education takes you away from these truths. You could be completely illiterate and know more about life than the person with the highest academic degrees and honours.

The entire scientific community together with the latest technologies and most qualified scientists could not predict the Tsunami. But some pre-historic tribes, with no connection at all with the ‘civilised’ world, living in isolated islands pre sensed the coming danger and managed to save themselves. And so did many animals.

A scientist who only knows what he has been taught, and is closed to other information will never know the real truth --- however material advancement he may make. A scientist must work closely with people in other fields and with laymen in order to make his knowledge more practical and to improve upon it.

All through the history, people who have contributed to human advancement and wisdom have been the people who have dared to look beyond what their contemporary society taught them --- whether formally or informally. It’s often the formal education which tries to manipulate the truth in order to suit those in power.

No degree in science prepared Newton to ponder about the apple that fell. He made his theories much before he acquired his degrees. I doubt that he would have been able to ponder about such an ordinary event had he completed his education.

Formal education may help you in two ways:
a. By giving you tools and resources: to further work upon your discoveries that you acquired through your wisdom/ experience.
b. By allowing you into the vistas of power: because it is difficult for someone to be heard or taken seriously in a westernised, highly controlled/ organised society.

But education plays an extremely negative role too: It kills the ability of an individual to think on his own and to experience this world on his own using his natural intuitions. To look beyond the square. It cripples the ability of the individual to question things. It makes him a conformist. Therefore, degrees have an intrinsic worth only if they are acquired after one has had the chance to experience/ understand this world on his own. If education makes a person incapable of looking beyond what he has been told --- education and degrees are worthless.

The modern scientific establishment is totally controlled by the forces of heterosexualisation. It gives the stamp of scientific validity to only those things that further the heterosexual agenda. Fortunately, internet discussion sites provide a forum to those whom the powerful scientific lobby has shut out. The sabotage efforts initiated by you and a few others is a reprehensible bullying attempt by these heterosexual forces to silence a scientific discussion which harms the heterosexual agenda.

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking!”
Albert Einstein

Science is not only that which is approved by the established bodies and allowed in it’s publications. Science is there in anyone --- including the illiterate --- who can analyse life’s situations logically/ scientifically (not necessarily conforming to established scientific positions if he has valid reasons to do so), and can establish a pattern and relationship between cause and effect.

It’s a peculiar Christian mentality --- that is perhaps the precursur of the over-organised and controlled society that the west today is. A Christian mentality where only what the powerful, authoritative body decided was accepted as god’s word, and the power of the individual to relate with and find god was snatched. You can’t realise or represent god unless you enroll as a formal member of the church and accept its training. The same mentality rules the human institution of sceince which has become today’s religion. This helps those in power to consolidate and perpetuate their control by manipulating with truth.

As far as your qualifications are concerned, I don’t see how a degree in micro-biology can prepare you to understand or analyse human sexuality. As I have commented earlier, sceince is only effective when dealing with things that we can see or things that have a material existence. The area of human needs and nature is not one of them, even though that does not stop science to attempt it through streams like Psychology. Even social science is not an exact science.

As far as the scientific study of human sexuality goes, it’s worth considering another quote from Albert Einstein:
“No, this trick won’t work! How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phemomenon as first love!”

Psychology in particular has been an effective tool in the hands of the scientific community to further the heterosexual agenda by manipulating the truth. If you look at psychology’s history in this field, if had for a long time held that ‘homosexuality’ (sic) is a disease, a mental disorder. It had proved this with several ‘scientific’ studies. Several dangerous forms of treatments, including electirc shock therapy was employed to treat the ‘patients’. Today, when so-called homosexuals gained political power the psychologists withdrew ‘homosexuality’ from its list of diseases. That is a complete turn around. How can you trust a ‘science’ like that, which works for those in power not for the truth?

A series of latest discoveries by both heterosexual and homosexual scientists have brought out the drawbacks of science when dealing with human nature. Today, one scientist will find a gene that makes people gay, tomorrow another will prove it false. There is any number of such studies pouring in which primarily deal with the reason of homosexuality, but which are all misleading because there is no such thing as homosexuality, the latest being one involving pheromones.

Even an exact science like biology and medicine is heavily manipulated by the forces of heterosexuality/ Christianity. For long it maintained that masturbation is extremely harmful. Today it does a complete turnaround, when actually there may be a remote element of truth in the statement --- at least under certain conditions. Similarly, the scientific lobby aggressively campaigns for the Christian practise of circumcision, maintaining it has several health benefits including a protection from STD’s and AIDS, and they are not speaking the complete truth. They ignore protests by several non-mainstream scientists that try to point out the dangers of circumcision.

For centuries, scientists have misinformed us about animal sexuality in keeping with heterosexualisation. Even today, scientists like M.J. Bailey, Ray Blanchard and Anne Lawrence openly and blatantly abuse science by conducting misleading studies on sexuality to further the heterosexual agenda. The scientific authorities and the media give them full supprot because of this. So much for wrtten/ published papers and scientists with degrees.

“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal”
Albert Einstein

And now coming down to my qualifications.

I’m a social worker and have worked at the ground level for a long time. I have a degree but not in social work, mind you, but I have built a niche for myself because of the quality of my work. I have had several trainings --- from doctors on the medical aspects of sexual health and on counseling, from leading organisations working on sexuality and gender on those issues. But I must tell you that as my work experiences often contradicted what I had been told by the experts (who use western knowledge), I started searching the truth on my own --- which has led me to reach the conclusions I’m sharing on this board.

I have presented several papers in national and international conferences based on my work experiences, where I have shared the dais with leading scientists and scholars, from across the world --- and I must say the response and respect I get is totally different from how you treat non-scientists. They value empirical evidence immensely. In at least two conferences my papers dominated the talks. I have written several more papers which have been presented by my colleagues. I have developed booklets, books, posters, plays, etc. on these issues. And they have been widely acknowldeged in my country and abroad. I’m writing two books for an international agency right now. Of course, I cannot write everything I know. I am told that certain things, though they may be true are not to be written because they will be unacceptable to the society. That is the truth about formal organisations.

However, I’m bound by no such boundations on this open board, and I thank the administrators for this wonderful opportunity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end I can only say that I am an ignorant soul. Kindly show me the way through your utter knowledge and wisdom, out of my mess. And tell me how and where I have faultered in my analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds!"
Albert Einstein

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just be careful that in your mission to tear down bigotry, you dont also attempt to uproot some very well established Oaks at the same time for this will weaken your message and make you no better than the bigot.

peace

c20

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have heard that. I can only try to analyse the above information using my theories (which admittedly still need to be proved!).

Tantra comes from a land which seems to have embodied a phenomenon similar to heterosexualisation (though a much milder form) quite early --- although we don't know if it was before the Greek period or afterwards.

Thus in India sex between man and woman has been celebrated for a long time at the cost of suppressing male-male bonds. Sexual pleasure of the kind derived from men is not possible to derive from the male-female relationship through the natural male-female intercourse (except for a few men!). But once the capability to enjoy sex with men is disabled, it is possible to prolong the enjoyment derived from male-female sex much longer, especially by employing some unusual techniques as perhaps laid down by Tantra. It also apparently uses herbs (drugs) to increase sensitivity, pleasure and sexual need. It probably uses the kind of sex practised between men (including anal sex) to increase the derivation of sexual pleasure from women.

 

I wish I could promise you that. That would be ideal.

Heterosexuals have put so much poison in the air that it is not possible not to hate anyone who carries the heterosexual label. I think I need to meet more people like you. I mean how can you not hate the Nazis. And talking to you has given strength to my hunch that people who have really poisoned the air are not real heterosexuals but the disguised ones, who only use the label of heterosexuality for the power it carries.

It's the institution of heterosexuality that is anti-man and has the suppression of the straight male's sexual instinct for another man as an important pillar, that needs to be demolished. If it happens male-female sex and bonds may suffer --- perhaps as much as male-male bonds have suffered in all these centuries, especially after their homosexualisation in the modern times -- and that would be unfortunate. But truly, I am more bothered about the enemy which is standing before me.......

They say when you grind the wheat the pest gets ground too. That's unavoidable. When you initiate a fight against Jehadis, many well meaning Muslims will get killed too. But again, where were these well meaning Muslims, when others from their faith were creating havoc all over the world. What did they do to reform Islam so that it does not remain an oppressive and violent force. They empower the Jehadis just by following the same faith, just like anyone who enjoys relationships with women and recieves the powers and benefits endowed by the heterosexual society, empowers the forces of heterosexualisation.

 

tere is an Arab saying, 'women for necessity, men for pleasure'..........when you say men cannot get enough statisfaction from sex with women, what do you mean?
do you mea because you regard anal intercourse as more satisfying for the male, doing it and eceiving it......So where DOES woman come into it then. WHERE does SHE get her pleasure from if not from a man. It is known for example tat a woman is capable of far more orgasms tan males are. tat whilst a male may come, and then roll over to naturally sleep, post orgasm, a woman even having orgasmed is raring to go more. This is were Tantra probbably originated......themale realizing and respecting te woman's more sexual capacity for pleaure, so he would hold back after muh much foreplay so as woman could have multiple orgasm. .....herer i am not speaking of the known traditional populist ideaof tantra which i feel has be appropriated by Eastern male metaphyscians, but a more anceint prepatriarchal style

 

First of all, in my opinion (and work experience) anal intercourse is more of a homosexual and (true) heterosexual thing. Most straight men do not prefer anal sex --- whether with men or women.

Men can get momentary sexual pleasure from women, and it can be quite intense too. But it cannot be intense or long lasting enough to carry on a relationship. Something which is possible in a male-male scenario. Of course I'm talking about a 'natural' society.

I would say, women have much less chances of enjoying sex with men than men have with women. Men's interest in women, in most cases, is till the ejaculation. And that 's too little for the woman. Most men tend to think that a woman's satisfaction depends on man's ejaculation. But they are wrong. Ejaculations only satisfy the men, not women.

I have reasons to believe that a woman has much more chance to satisfy another woman sexually. Because, she is apt to use more hugging, caressing and endless titillation of the clitoris as she is not focussed on sexual intercourse. Plus, she is also more likely to understand and know the female body and how to arouse her. Also intimacy is much more possible between two women than a man and a woman (who are from different planets, mind you!). This intimacy too will account for a more satisfying sexual experience for a woman.

By the way, according to my analysis, a queer man will have almost similar success with women, because he will have a much better understanding of women and an ability to form intimacy with them, because he is not really from another planet. That's one of the basis for my contention that heterosexuality is queer.

 

The trouble I think though is that you are not saying 'how can you not hate the Nazi's?' but rather 'how can you not hate the Germans?'

The only reason this subject interests me is because of a very frightening experience I had when I was younger. Had I not had my wits about me I could well have been raped by a man. He made me feel comfortable, was very nice and it was all very platonic. I considered him someone who I could call a friend even though I had not been aquainted to him for very long. I did not know he was gay and I would not have made an issue of my own sexuality because it was not appropriate. Like I say it all seemed very platonic. Then he made his move on me out of the blue. At first I thought perhaps he was joking, winding me up - guys sometimes do this in a bonding, jokey way but are not serious. He tried to make out that I had 'led him on' and he became agressive. He was a well built guy and very strong, seemed very macho actually and I think it was only adrenaline that allowed me to get away.

Now for a short while after I became extremely anti-gay until the mark of the experience faded as do almost all bad experiences. I realise that this guy was a nazi and that I couldn't blame all German's for the way the nazi was. My feelings about gay sex will never abate though. I am not sure if I am a quirk of nature because gay sex doesnt appeal but whatever, it doesnt seem important.

It is important that the persecuted German's do not start behaving like nazi's however or start condoning nazi behaviour because they feel their national identity is being threatened.

I hope I havnt mixed my metaphors too badly there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Am I making sense?

Thanks

c20

 

Like I said, as far as nature is concerned, male-female sex is not really geared for mutual enjoyment -- not for long. Tantra is an artificial method, just like heterosexuality --- only the latter is also oppressive.

 

Somewhat. But if Nazis play havoc with the world, and you drop a bomb on a Nazi location, you'll inadvertently kill many Germans (even if you quite sympathise iwth them) because they all live in the same neighbourhood. Perhaps its a sacrifice they have to make. Perhaps you can help them rebuild.

However, even though I'm convinced now that 'heterosexuality' is the root of the problem (not male-female sex in itself, the problem is that male-female sex is made the norm and enforced on men through force, while they are prevented from mating with other men --- through force), my ultimate motive is to find the truth about how nature intended us to be. Because that is the kind of society we should all strive for. And if it includes sexual relationships between men and women for some people we should honour that.

But what I'd really want to know is that is this really possible for a man to be naturally heterosexual (i.e. not to need another man at all). I have worked with so many men in my life, I have not come across a man who does not say he is not interested in men, and then indirectly and subtly show an interest. I mean, may be you did not like that particular man or didn't really look for sex with a man (not because they turn you off, but because you had a better sexual option in girls). But perhaps if it were a different man? Perhaps a beautiful feminine/ meterosexual male instead of a macho guy? And if you weren't socially turned off (because of upbringing!)?

By now I think, there are a few men who are orientated to have full fledged, intimate relationships with women as their primary sexual need, but they still have a sexual desire for men as their secondary sexual need (which comes out only when the primary need is unfulfilled or is blocked!). It's only that this desire is for feminine males rather than masculine males.

It seems everyone has two (or more) sexual needs. One primary and the other secondary. In some people both the needs can become prominent.

 

Although, I admit, I have met some straight men who speak very highly of anal intercourse -- the act of penetrating. Perhaps they are not so vocal about receptive anal sex because it is not considered manly.

 

I love guys. I have two very close male friends whom I love a lot. We have laughed together, cried together, fought together and have sat until the early hours of many a night discussing all kinds of subjects.
None have felt compelled to show sexual interest in eachother. It isn't something that is considered. I would wager that the fun and intimacy that we enjoy in eachothers company would be seriously compromised if any showed a sexual interest in the other.

You are asserting that male-male sex is something that is being supressed against an underlying natural desire in heterosexuals. I'm just saying that there is no suppresion. The desire just doesn't exist. Well not in me anyway. Call me a liar if you will and we can descend into the pantomime of 'yes you are / no your not' exchange however I think you just want people to accept homosexuals without prejudice. I cannot knock you for that, however if you fight fire with fire you just end up with more fire.

peace

c20

 

I'm not talking about homosexuals. I'm talking about straight men. I'm myself straight and all my work have worked with straight men.

Mind you I am using the term 'straight' not in the western heterosexual sense, but in a more natural/ traditional sense --- meaning masculine, regular men. Just like when I use queer, it is not in the western 'homosexual' sense but in the natural/ traditional sense of feminine gendered.

Of course no one expects or talks about such feelings amongst friends, often men never know about each other's mutual feelings. It's not done. I think in heterosexual societies most men would carry this need in suppressed forms till their grave. In my society men give vent to it in the forms of superficial sex with men, and in very intimate friendships. Then again, it is not necessary that such feelings would generate for close friends.

Of course, you don't ask a person if he has any feelings for men and expect him to say yes. even if he does --- which in most cases he would.

But I assume there would be some men who genuinely do not have a sexual need for men. Whether this is a natural condition or one that is a result of centuries of heterosexualisation is difficult to know. My contention here is that it is a queer trait, when it occurs naturally. In some men it can go to the extent of transexuality. This queerness is not at all bad or ugly or inferior. But an important human quality. It may be superficially hidden by social masculinity/ power that heterosexuality brings with it.

You tend to become who you love. I have seen men after men who appear masculine/ straight till the time they are married (marriage is compulsory in my society --- sexual orientation is hardly an excuse!) and change dramatically if they love their wives. They become really feminine, which is actually a great thing (they were a pain in the ass earlier!). They become gentle, soft, caring, are adept at taking care of children, they cook, clean dishes, are wary of getting into fist-fights, cry like women, and so on. In fact too often they harbour a secret desire to dress up.

 

Looking around at what the heterosexual male thinks is power, I can start to compile a list. Beating and terrorizing children, that's a big one. Racial and sexual bigotry make them feel powerful. Alcohol makes them feel powerful. The yolk's on them when they use crystal meth to make themselves feel powerful. Their teeth fall out. They'd like to keep their women barefoot, pregnant, and silent.

The biggest trouble I see with the "heterosexual identity" is that it lives as opposed to homosexuality, as opposed to racial and religious minorities, as opposed to femininity. This is hollow. Seesawing between alcoholic stupors and drug-inspired mania (caffein, cold medicine, meth, take your pick) does not do anything about the hollowness. Filling yourself with pain is like deliberately swallowing corrosive substances. There may be some substance to a true heterosexual identity, but that substance goes away when a man only identifies himself as heterosexual by hating other lifestyles.

 

The real straight men on the other hand do not have this capacity. On the face of it there is hardly any difference between the real straight ones and those who get the title because of their heterosexuality. But once you know the difference it's easy to tell.

Straight men (when I say straight I mean the real straights not heterosexuals) naturally lack the capability to bond with women. If women are from venus they are from mars. A long time bond full of love and committment with women is hardly their cup of tea. There interest in women usually lasts as long as the ejaculation. Beyond that they may feign it because of the pressures of social masculinity.

The reason why straight men cannot form a long term love relationship with women is their masculinity. Masculine and feminine can only attract short time, even if it is intense. But they cannot exist together. Their needs, their way of looking at life is totally different from each other.

But in a traditional society, masculine men hardly have such pressures and so they hardly ever fall in love. The men who fall in love with women and want to spend their life with them are different and considerably feminine. Since they don't have a diifferent social identity than the straight men (who also pretend to be heavily interested in women -- at least for the asking!) their difference is not noticed. And since the society wants to showcase sexual desire for women as masculine it does not even want to consider the femininity of truly heterosexual men.

Because their masculinity precludes a desire for long term bonds with women, straight men typically have run away from marriage. When forced into marriage (they may not always admit they have been forced!) women can make their lives really hell. They see women as nagging, demanding and too cosy for their comfort. They find it difficult to love women and their interest in them is restricted till sex --- apart from fondness that may develop because of socially being tied to each other for life. They can't mix with women share their likes and dislikes with them, or be equal to them --- unless they are forced to, like in a heterosexual society.

Equality between men and women is something a heterosexual male is naturally inclined to believe in. This sense of equality stems from a deep feminine feeling inside the heterosexual male that makes him feel closer to women. He sees no difference between himself and women. They are both the same. This sameness translates into equality. And equality between men and women is a cherished goal of a heterosexual society. But this equality actually means sameness. The fact however is that nature has not made straight men and women the same, and so in this setup where men and women are forced to be the same under a mixed gender/ heteroseual set up, its invariably the straight man who suffers. His identity, his real needs, interests, desires, feelings --- they all suffer.

This sameness helps the truly heterosexual man achieve such a degree of intimacy with women which straight men are invariably incapable of. These truly heterosexual men, in traditional societies are often teased as wimps, womanly, wif'e's servants, unmanly or even eunuchs (of course in their respective languages!). In the heterosexual society, the same men are glorified as masculine, and 'womaniser' becomes a masculine trait to be proud of. It's really funny to observe how this social masculinity factor affects the behaviour of men who vye with each other to prove that they can gel so well with women, and find it difficult to be friends with men (as I observed on this board --- I don't know how many of them were truly straitghts!). In a traditional society it would be a matter of great shame for a man to be seen in women's company and he would be accused of being a eunuch/ transexual.

In fact, there needs to be a different category for the truly heterosexual man --- if the society were to be built on the true differences between people, instead of the forced ones. Unfortunately, the modern society decided to manipulate straight male sexual behaviour and divided/ grouped men on the basis of whether they admit to loving men or not (and therefore admitting that one does indeed have a sexual interest in men has become taboo!). The true heterosexual man shares almost all the traits of homosexual men, and has little in common with straight men. The only difference is that the primary sexual need of heterosexual men is for 'masculine women' and secondary for 'feminine men', while for the homosexual man the primary sexual need is for 'feminine men' and the secondary for 'masculine women'. In fact, inadvertently --- following their natural instincts, the two groups are coming together in the heterosexual society as 'meterosexuals'. More and more previously straight identifying heterosexuals are now identifying as 'meterosexuals', because the straight space is too restricting for their innate sense of femininity. While many so-called 'homosexuals' are now identifying as 'straights'. The truly homosexual men are however too cosy in their 'homosexual' category. This space amply accomadates their femininity as well as their sexual needs + gives them social/ political power and that powerful minority/ victim status. True Homosexuals defend this 'homosexual' identity like a matter of life and dealth, not allowing heterosexual transexuals or meterosexuals into the queer space. They are the most ardent supporters of the 'sexual orientation' theory --- more than any heterosexual (true or not!).

It is hardly amazing that the height of heterosexuality is transexuality --- when the person starts identifying with the female so much that he wants to be a female himself --- so that he can remove all the differences between himself and women. In the initial surveys conducted, more than 90% of transexuals have admitted to being heterosexuals. This is no mean thing!

But it is also true that the society has forcibly kept transexuals from the definition of heterosexula --- when they are the best specimens of heterosexuals. This is of course done so that heterosexuality can be shown as a masculine trait. The media and films help in this artificial masculinisation of heterosexuality by never showing heterosexuals as harbouring any feminine traits. While a man harbouring sexual desire for men is always depicted as queer. Films/ media mind you have the deepest impact onn the minds of the young who shape their behaviour and attitudes likewise, forcing the people to be heterosexuals from a very young age.

 

An interesting point to note here is that while the traditional society had an understandable motive in pressurising men to mate with women and stay away from men -- a need to increase population at a time when infant mortality was high and competitions between communities was intense. A modern society has no excuse for its mindless heterosexualisation. It only serves to oppress people.

The traditional society was not interested in persecuting straight man's need for men beyond what it needed to force men into marriage and raising of children. It allowed men space to indulge in sexual and emotional bonds with other men behind a purdah (screen), as long as they did not openly talk about or indulge in these desires.

The heterosexual society is mindlessly and aggressively seeking to wipe out all traces of male-male sexual desire from the mainstream male community and throwing it into the queer space. And it has some extremely powerful tools at its hands much powerful than what the medieval society had in 'relgion'. The modern society uses 'science' (we should say abuses science) in order to achieve this homosexualisation of male-male sexual desire. Other powerful weapons that the society has include the media/ films which have wide accessibility and immense impact on the young. They show life as totally and unfllinchingly as heterosexual. And male-male sexual desires are shown as outside the straight space -- as gay. No wonder people grown up on T.V.s view world as naturally being divided into heterosexual and homosexual.

 

I remember watching the discovery channel several years ago, where scientists made such tall and far fetched claims about what was going on inside the animals head, as if they knew for certain. So if the poor guy is pissing, he is actually marking his territory or trying to attract a female. It's especially funny how everything the poor male does is seen as being done to finally attract the female (this includes, mind you trying to mate with another male --- he is only practising it for the real heterosexual event!). They conveniently overlook when the female stares the male right in the face, follows him right and left and he leaves her cold.

Anyway, I was particularly angry when they were showing a programme on T.V. and when one of the researcher commented that although people believe that elephants are highly emotional beings, there are no scientific evidences of it. What competence does science have to understand or measure elephant's emotions when it can't for the life of it understand human emotions, when humans can speak.

At least before science came, man had the power to understand, relate with and show compassion towards animals. If science snatches this important power of human beings, there is a strong case for limiting the role of science in our lives. The institution of science has just too many drawbacks.

And again there are just too many parallels between science and Christianity. Christianity too looked down upon animals and tried to severe the natural ties that bind human beings with the animals. In fact worshipping of animals was labelled devilish. Man was started being perceived as really different from other animals.

Today Science is controlling and ruling our lives (in fact those in power are ruling using science as a tool!) just like Christianity ruled in the medieval period.

 

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.

 

It's funny how another scientific research by the late Morton smith who accidentally hit on ancient documents attempting to suppres accounts of Jesus's sexual relationships with male disciples by the early church, was fiercely attacked by 'qualified scientists' who argued that the documents did not contain enough proof.

While, they would not ask for such detailed proof in case of assumed male-female desire and even an animal pissing is for them a heterosexual act, nothing short of a detailed account of anal intercourse will suffice for them to deduce that there was something sexual between two ancient men (and yes, did the ancient documents clearly talk about ejaculation?). Then again, they might ask for proof that the men were not actually practising their penetrating ability, or maybe it was a part of a spiritual ritual that the two men were forced to do, while they actually quite hated it.

If everything else is proved, then they will deduce (and they will not need any evidences for that!) that the two men were 'homosexuals'. And then they would look for clues that they were queer. Did they wear mascara? They will find something, even the remotest thing to prove that the men indeed were homosexuals.

It was again funny to read western professors and degree holders comment on a report from Afghaishtan that in some parts of it, it is customary for men to take a male youth as lover before they get married. The love often continues after the marriage. Most capable, hot blooded men have at least one male lover at any given time. The flabbergasted scientists, who think its their eternal duty to uphold heterosexualism -- whether by hook or crook --- had several readymade explanations (and they did not need to do any research or make use of any 'published' papers to support their comments. If you're a qualified scientist you are competent to speak about almost anything under the sun (or above it!), as long as you don't go against heterosexualism. The media too gives them so much prmominence!): One explanation forwarded was that the women are covered from head to toe, and dating is impossible so they make do with other guys. Another explanation was that that Afghani men are feminine (imagine, one of the most macho races in the world!). And what was the 'proof' forwarded for this sweeping statement? That Afghani men wear kohl.

It would not help to tell these stupid scientists that Afghani men wear kohl not as an assertion of their femininity. But it is an ancient custom amongst men. There is nothing feminine about Kohl in itself. It is the culture which ascribes masculine or feminine attributes to particular acts. But then these scientists are actually not stupid. In fact they are too clever. They are fooling the people who blindly believe in what they say because of their degrees. And as long as they further the cause of heterosexualisation they have the support of those in power.

 

Notice how all these theories/ studies conducted by heterosexual and homosexual scientists concentrate on further isolating male-male sexual desire by 'proving' they are 'different' from regular/ straight guys --- by (supposedly) examining useless and minor details (e.g. how homosexuals and heterosexuals respond to pheromones!). All these studies have sought to understand sexuality in abstracts. There has not been a single concerted study so far to understand human sexuality in its entirety. Because no one is really interested in finding out the truth. They just want to add to heterosexualisation/ homosexualisation process.

They serve to strengthen the gay identity and isolate male-male desire out from the mainstream straight community.