Heterosexuality is unnatural

count one in

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bloody hell...another thread on the same shit?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

May I ask, on what basis do you say that basic nature and need of men are different in different societies.

I once met a highly knowledgable person who said that human beings are really the same as animals. An average animal just lives to eat, sleep and have sex, and that is what an average human being does. The fact is that the basic nature of human beings is the same as the basic nature of animals. But this you may or may not agree with. However, there is no reason --- biological, social or otherwise that points to the possibility of the basic needs of people differing in different societies. Here by basic we mean the very basic, natural needs.

I think you are having a difficulty in understanding things here. The probablity is you have a great mental block, and you don’t want to understand. You are only reading my posts so that you can find some thing to go against. That is against the spirit of a meaningful discussion.

The outward behaviour of men in our society is definitely very similar to heterosexuals. They only have more freedom behind the scenes. My analysis of the basic nature of men is not based on their outward or claimed behaviour. Like I told earlier, you ask them and they will all claim to be interested only in girls and never in boys. It is based on what lies beneath what they say and do. I don’t know what is so difficult to understand in there.

Of course they cannot. But my society like yours forces them to mate with women and tries to suppress their need for other men. Only the degree of this pressure is different. But when I am talking about the basic need of men, I’ve already discounted for the social pressures – so they have no relevance here.

I don’t give a hoot for formal research. I am interested in finding the simple truths of life. I leave it to other people to take it from here and conduct their own researches. My job in life is to expose a long suppressed aspect of human oppression.

They are from 16 to 23 years old --- mostly. Though I’ve conducted workshops with people above 40 too, however, my focus is youth and adolescents.

I will leave the analysis of your personal life to yourself. I know enough not to take men for their words in these matters. I would request you not to make this a personalised discussion.

I can assure you I have not based my conclusions on mere superficial observations of people. You have to take my word for it. You are a sincere guy. Only you need to examine my statements with an open mind. Then only you can help me broaden my horizons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its the shit us heterosexuals find off-putting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If only you'd listen to me! I know better than to trust the media in these matters --- whether in America or in my society.

In any case if I had listened to what media was saying I would be saying things that would be songs to your ears. Your media only shows the level of your heterosexualisation and the kinds of pressures it puts on males.

One thing is certain from your post: You are worried about Americans believing what I'm saying. And like a true follower of the heterosexual ideology, you want them to disbelieve these things at any cost.

I'm looking at what your media is saying. But I'm also looking at what it is not saying. E.g. how does your media show case male-male sexual desire. Or how does is talk about male-female sexual desire.

E.g., I'm noticing the trend in your media where you guys are eulogising female-female sex as part of a heterosexual ethos.

Or that how a discussion about male-male sex is always interspersed with issues of transgenderism or with gender-benders.

Or how when it talks about male sexual desire for women, it uses words like "hot blooded males".

Or how quick it is to lap up a half-baked study about 'gay' genes or pheromones. How it talks of wild life and ancient figures in terms of heterosexual and gay as if these things are natural and universal.

Or how it conveniently ratifies the censoring of kiss between two men, on the basis that supposedly super macho heterosexual guys (as your media and movies portray them!) who don't know what pain or fear is, and who can watch anything on screen --- from ghastly rotting bodies to murders most foul, will break into pieces if they were to see two men kissing on the screen.

 

I'll be frank. I just cannot read through all of that stuff. I know what I am, I am happy with what I am. I am happy for people to give themselves over to whatever they wish with whatever consenting individuals they wish.
Please, if you are going to make points, then make them in a more succint fashion. If you are just making statements, I for one am going to go 'Oh well he is entitled to his opinion.' and move on. Nothing personal.

peace

c20

 

Fair enough!

 

Once again, my endeavour is to find out the natural human nature. It is the outward behaviour of people that is a result of cultural influences not the basic nature of humans.

 

I'm also human, and need to be shown my place when I falter.

However, I still do believe in what I'm saying here. If you've read my earlier posts then you'd know that I'm talking about the heteroseual ideology which draws lines around male sexual behaviour. I am not talking about male-female sex or romance. You don't need to be a heterosexual to love women, nor do you need to be a homosexual to love a man. And that is my point.

And in anycase I'll gladly retract my statement if I am shown how I'm wrong.

 

Ok ...

mmm...

 

I'm overgeneralising, am I? And the western society does not when it deems that gay men are unfit to fight in the army, though the women are fit? If men will have sex with each other it will demoralise them, but if they have sex with women that will be a great moral booster?

Or when it assumes the majority to be heterosexual?

Or when it portrays male sexual desire for men as homosexual/ feminine in popular media?

Or when it says that allowing male-male sex will mean the end of the world as it will stop all procreation?

Or when it says on FTV that the section on men was appreciated by women and 'some men'. As if, if it did not qualify the word 'men' with the word 'some', all men will start enjoing it?

Be reasonable. I have come here after years of work. I have had enough experiences to establish patterns. I have used my conclusions successfully to work with people in changing their lives. I can validate each of my assertions with logical, scientific back-up including giving external proofs.

But if I were indeed to be overgeneralising, why are you afraid to take them up and show me how they are over generalised. You seem to be scared to pick up my contentions to discuss them.

 

Bhudda1: Is your position this ...

Somehow, mankind has been sold a lie as it stands today. There should be much greater acceptance of male-male relationships because there is nothing to suggest there is anything perverse about it. If there was more acceptance, then men could share natural sexual relations with men in an uninhibited fashion.

Is that your position? Please point out any misunderstandings succinctly.

Thanks

c20

 

It is a pleasant news to me that people have appreciated my posts. From the responses and the opposition I had to face in the threads I thought my posts are only hated..

 

You caught me there.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I realised I could be pulled up for that one when I was writing that. See, when you know what I'm saying can be challenged you do it right away. I would like you to take up my contentions one by one and show me how I am not completely right in my analysis.

That is a statment from my heart. I believe anyone who lives close to nature will be much much more happy and content that those who live in highly artificial, controlled environment, spend their lives running after careers and stuff.

I had a chance to live in a small mountainous town. The life there was so slow and different from the big city that I live in. In the city we keep rushing from morining till evening without really getting anywhere and the time passes by like this. Up there, life was so laid back. Not having a T.V. set helped a lot because in my house whenever I've nothing else to do I just sit in front of the T.V. set. There is always so much to choose from amongst the channels. our problem actually is that we are living amongst plenty. I have never been so happy in my life as I was in that small town. I had so much time for myself. I made lots of friends, loitered around a lot and did all sorts of things I could never find time for. People cared for each other. Almost everyone knew each other and you could not pass the market without saying hello to people you kept meeting on the way.

 

I am not stating they are not any different, but you have not proven that they are. Goodness...

Let me try to illustrate:
Let's say a person did a study of flies and wanted to know what the fly eats. So, he observes the flies around the garbage cans and notices that they love to eat poop. Okay, so he makes notes of all the thousands of flies that go to this same dumster to eat the poop. So, he makes an overgeneralized statement after years of study saying that flies eat poop.

Little did he know that that particular dumster was say full of nothing else but poop and if he had checked the dumpster down the street, he would not have made the same statement because it is a dumpster filled with different things in it.

The scientist is not wrong, after all, he has observed flies eating poop. But his research is incomplete and underdeveloped and any statement he makes about other flies in different parts of the block are unsubstantiated by his current evidence.

I am saying you cannot make any assumption about males without studies males as a species, not a culture. Whose to say that there is unknown radiation coming from the Earth that is undetectable on your side of the Pond? Your statements are hasty conclusions, and overgeneralized to include all men in all parts of the world, without studying all men in all cultures.

Do you understand now?

Buddah1, I considered the evidence in your first thread and once battled you and conceded. That should be enough evidence for you that I have an open mind to your evidence, but I don't see any provided from other cultures, so I cannot take an assumption as easily as you.

"Them" being the men in your culture, you cannot say anything about the males anywhere else in the world. Is all you have is a hypothesis that is substantiated by your research, that is fine, maybe that is where I'm getting hung up.

So everything here is your opinion and not fact like you were stating, or do you have some evidence from other nations?

I am just offering myself as an example which contradicts your conlcusion, thereby making some of your arguments false.

Just last quote you were saying you know enough not to take men for their words in these matters, and now you expect me to take your word? That's a double-standard.
I have examined your statements and they lack evidence. If you put the words, "My culture's men" in front of them, you have a case, and I am interested in hearing about what you have found about your culture's men.

If you want to broaden your horizons and be taken seriously by the world, you need to do the same years of research you did in your culture, in diametrically opposed cultures as yours.

 

Now, that is a conclusion that I agree on, but we have no evidence that this is true. Have you heard of the Amish? They are a culture within the culture of the United States, that attempts to live in a more-natural environment without electricity and cars. I don't know if they even use medicines. I envy those people at times, life must be slower for them, and today's society is definitely not what I call natural. But their culture is definitely a male-dominated society.

A sense a kindred spirit in amongst the flames of debate. I spent much of my childhood miles away from civilization, TV, and indoor plumbing, and I remember the lazy evenings when at the same time, hundreds of different types of birds would put on a dance for an hour before going to sleep...and you'd just sit back and enjoy the show in the cool evening at sunset with a babbling creek in the background. Definitely slow, so slow there was time enough to listen to the sound of bees.

 

O.K. let's forget other countries. Let's take up America.

Let's forget my hypothesis. Then are you saying that the American male population is naturally heterosexual, that is, most of the men (90% according to your society's estimates!)? Which means these guys are unable to respond positively to any kind of sexual eroticism from men. It is just not in their nature. Right?

Thus if we take a group of 100 Americans who are brought up from early childhood in a society where men and women live serparate lives and there are no seuxal identities, and no concept of sexual orientation and men usually experiment with both the sexes, (and the Americans have no contact with the outside world, including America) you are saying that since Americans are by nature divided into heterosexual and homosexual, 90 out of these 100 Americans, inspite of the boundary less culture they have grown in, grow up to be heterosexuals, hate any kind of erotic experience with other boys, think of themselvs as different from the locals who are much more fluid in the choice of their sexual partners, and relate with other 'heterosexually identified male in the group, and see the 'homosexuals' as different? Would the 10 Americans who would grow up to be homosexuals be as limp wristed and 'gaity' as homosexuals in America are supposed to be?

How about if these Americans grew in a Greek like society, where almost every youth is expected to choose a male lover before he could go on to marry a woman? Would the 90 Americans hate this practise with all of their guts?

 

Misunderstanding. When I say not to take men for their words in these matters is when they talk about their personal sexual preferences. Men just have too much at stake to reveal the truth.

This is different than asking you to trust the depth of my research. But forget it. You have no reason to trust. But what I'm saying it that my assertions can be proved with a logical discussion, if we can get down to it.

 

I don't know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know that most would reject the idea, but that could be social pressure and/or conditioning. I can only speak for myself.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here, but I can tell you that the individuals in the heterosexual group bond with their own sex in a different manner than with the opposite sex. The behavior is characteristically, consistently, opposite.

What do you mean supposed to be?
The homosexual groups are characteristically different, though they don't see themselves acting out of the norm. It is even in their voice.

I can't speak for them, but based on the many platonic relationships, casual and intimate (not sexual), I've had with other men, I would say yes.
However, boys and young teenagers I am not at all sure, especially since I myself experimented. Is the fact that younger men and boys are moldable, evidence that heterosexuality does not exist in human nature? I think you could get a young person to do anything if you presented it in the right manner.

 

I like to hump females that look like females. That is, little body hair, large breasts, and other feminine traits caused by an abundance of female hormones, not man juice are traits I select for when I engage in vaginal intercourse.

In fact, I enjoy humping, grinding, carressing, touching and licking these females so much, I don't think I'd ever bother with a man. I might sodomize a man, r have him suck me off, but that would be for degradation. I'd only get off cause I'd be showing him who the man was.

I also don't like things in my ass.