Heterosexuality is unnatural

Look, jerk, you are obviously gay and are just trying to find a way to justify it by pretending it's superior.

Understand that I have no problems with gays but I am strongly anti-idiot!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I can be equally rude, but I've decided to just report you to the moderators and let them deal with you.

All I'll say is that I challenge you into proving who is straight and who is queer. If you are really that brilliant and not a sissy, you'd accept that challenge. But you'd be expected to use logic and not foul language. If you're a man we can meet in a different thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry for answering such an important question so late (although I’ve dwelt on the topic earlier).

The term sexual orientaion is a deliberate attempt to confuse the common man about male gender and sexual needs. And so is the term heterosexuality. It is academically defined as sexual desire or act between a man and woman. But in practise it is much more than that. In practise --- even by the academicisans and scientists, heterosexuality actually includes:

- A craving and capability of men to bond emotionally and sexually with women.
- Heterosexuality is the majority trait: That this craving is universal, essential in men (except in a minority of males)

- Mixing gender with sexuality: That heterosexuality is equal to straighthood: That this craving is intricately linked with a man’s masculinity. That it differentiates between who is masculine (straight) and who is feminine (queer).

- That it is possible to divide human male population into heterosexual and homosexual social identities. That heterosexuality and homosexuality are two mutually exclusive desires that occurs together only in a minority who can be labelled ‘bisexuals’.

- That (heterosexual = straight ) men in general do not have a sexual need for other men. They cannot respond to other men sexually. That they are actually repelled beyond disgust if confronted with male-male eroticism.

Heterosexuality only happens in a society which is forcibly made mixed gender by instituting women into male spaces. The traditonal gender and sexual roles of men about sex with women is intensified in such settings and they now have to have relationships with women in order to prove they are ‘men’. Earlier they were just required to have sex with women (or claim to have had sex or just be interested) and even earlier what was needed as proof of manhood was a child (son!).

Men in non-heterosexual/ non-westernised societies still do not relate with the term heterosexual. Indeed many men get angry if labelled as heterosexual. It is considered a lack of masculine character. Still others are unsure about what it is supposed to mean. I remember an incident narrated to me several years ago (before the heterosexualisation of my society began). The conference of English speaking doctors were discussing HIV/ AIDS when the revelation was made that the majority of patients in my coutry were heterosexuals. A startled doctor exlaimed, “I did not know there were so many of them in our country?”

I guess, whatever happens spontaneously and is not engineered by the human beings is natural.

We cross the boundary of nature whenever we do anything that harms or disrupts the natural flow of things. What harms nature is against nature. What is against nature is unnatural. As per this definition almost all of our lifestyle is ‘unnatural’ because it harms nature. Whether it is using electricity or driving cars or building dams.

In my opinion (again not unfounded) Christianity and heterosexuality are the basic reasons why man started moving away from nature (consider it my personal view and ignore it, because I will not like to discuss it here!). In my traditional society people used to live simple lives in tandem with nature. The heterosexual westerners ruled us for centuries and changed our lifestyle. Most of the non-western world lived in tandem with nature. But today the west with its enormous wealth and power that it generated by exploiting nature for short term gains, has influenced the entire world and I agree that it is almost impossible to go back. Nature, in the westernized world has been restricted to a few pockets called ‘reserves’. Thus human civilisation has itself become unnatural.

You are right and wrong.

It's true that we have come far from nature. We are indeed living unnatural lives. Unfortunately. The more we get away from nature the lesser is our chance to be happy and free. The materialistic west thinks that prosperity and riches derived from exploiting nature is 'happiness', but it is not. It's like killing a hen that lays golden egg to get all the gold at once.

Life did not have to be this way. And progress did not have to mean getting away from nature. Before Christianity/ heterosexualisation/ industrialization we had maintained a balance (that includes a balance in our population!). These three concepts have changed all that. Today we want our clothes to be ultra-white without giving a damn to how it affects the environment. We have adopted an extremely luxurious lifestyle at the cost of nature. We don’t have to live this way, but unless heterosexuality is defeated we can never achieve balance.

To pursue previously unknown desires doesn't mean banning the original/ basic/ essential ones. If they went out on their own, things would be different, although very unfortunate. But if people are forced to suppress them it is really really bad.

Going back is extremely difficult --- almost impossible you are right. E.g., as long as religions like Christianity and Islam that seek to aggressively increase their populations are out there, a new life-style that seeks to remove the pressure of marriage cannot survive. Because, numbers are strength and you cannot increase numbers unless you force men to procreate.

Note that 'We' have created this situation. Only we are responsible for what we have done to ourselves and the nature. But on the positive side, only we can reshape things, if we truly believe in humanity.

Culture is not part of our nature. At least not necessarily.

The real straight men who my information will benefit the most are too enchained today to lend their voice. I don’t expect support from them.

I do expect a lot of aggressive and mostly illogical opposition (mainly tantrums) from heterosexuals and homosexuals, because I’m challenging their power base.

And finally, all past oppressive systems and concepts, in their times, were believed to be natural and indefeatable. But they were destroyed. Their end starts when the victims get a voice. So nothing remains constant but nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What utter and absurd garbage!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why even make such insane statements when you know that you cannot show even the slightest bit of proof for it?

 

I knew you'd chicken out (And I'm trying to restrain myself utterly, so as not to be rude, because I don't want to get a bad impression from the moderators).

That's why people like you are not worth getting angry about.

You know quite well that what I've been saying is hundred percent right and you thought you could scare me away with that kinda talk. din ya pal!

 

Hmmm...lets look at how "natural" homosexuality is:

- There are NO homosexual fish or birds (which act only out of instinct)
- Only animals with a high enough intelligence to have some type of psychology are found to be gay (mammals)
- Homosexuality isn't a genetic trait, there are some identical twins (same DNA) where one twin is gay and the other is straight
- If everyone on the planet was homosexual, the human population would die out...as there would be no more reproduction..how is that for survival and keeping your species alive?

Its CRYSTAL CLEAR that homosexuality isn't natural at all. This guy is gay and trying to say it's natural...get over it man it's nothing but unnatural

Heterosexuality is obviously natural as it's the ONLY way to reproduce.

 

Thank you for preponing it, but my next thread was going to be that "there is no evidence for homosexuality in nature!"

As about heterosexuality amongst animals being natural, we have already proved how it is not so, so get something new.

I'm getting tired of all these frivolous minded people abusing this precious space to casually air their vent. This is a serious discussion, it's not a battleground between self-defined heterosexuals and homosexuals.

 

Chicken out? I've done NO such thing. I'm really on your silly case now. Show us solid proof of your ridiculous claims. I promise NOT to leave you alone until you do! "Chicken out", eh?!

 

Let's see then. There are a couple of things to be done first, and a couple of rules to be laid down:

1. First of all, I'm not going to provide proofs for my earlier contentions all over again. You can read the thread for the proofs.

2. Our challenge is about seeing who is straight and who is really a queer. Without getting to too personal a discussion, our topic of discussion would be to discuss these terms thread bare. And of course, we will not only use the western definitions forwarded by the heterosexual west, but will look at the root of the words, look at the past, the present and the nature, and then decide if we fit into these definitions.

3. You will refrain from using foul language. Because you prompt me to do the same, which I do not want to do. If you fail to honour this rule, I'd leave -- assuming you've lost. Only people who have nothing worthwhile to say choose to use foul language.

4. We will create a different thread. I don't want to trivialise this important thread which is discussing another issue, especially when I'm not sure about your debating ability. Other people who want to chip in can join in the other thread!

5.You can tell me if these rules are acceptable to you and suggest your own rules if any.

 

Those rules are fine.

I've not once used any foul language here or elsewhere - nor will I ever. What you may consider "foul" (though it is not) in when I once called you and idiot. That still applies.

I have read through the entire thread - and nowhere did you offer even the slightest proof of the single challenge I've placed before you. Would you like for it to be repeated?

I haven't the slightest interest in who is straight or gay. As I said before, I have nothing against gays so that's a complete moot point as far as I'm concerned.

Now... Will you answer the challenge?

 

You called me idiot and gay. For me both are abuses. The first one is obviously not true and it shows. I'm throwing the challenge for the second one. I can prove you're a queer and on top of it a 'lesser man', and prove that I'm not. And I promise not to get too personal.

You couldn't have read the entire thread. It's 9 pages long. You can repeat your contentions, but it is not the part of my challenge. Furthermore, I will not answer your queries if I've answered it already. I'll just refer you to the page where you'll find the answer. But if you ask too many questions that I've already answered, I'll ask you to read the entire thread first.

Now you're chickening out. I can prove that you're a sissy and not straight. That's my challenge. If you're a man accept it!

 

It is interesting to note that the earliest meaning of the word heterosexual was to refer to excessive and pathological sexual desire for women. And this did not rule out a sexual desire for men.

 

Heterosexuality is queer

Challenge no.2

After proving that heterosexuality – at least as far as nature (wildlife) is concerned, is non-existent but for a small percentage in each species. The next step is to shatter the most prominent lie around ‘manhood’ --- that heterosexuality is masculine. That it makes men masculine or is a mark of his manhood.

This is my another challenge to anyone who claims to be a ‘heterosexual’. That heterosexuality and femininity/ queerness in males are inseparable --- both amongst the humans as well as the animals. The heteroseuxal's claim to manhood is not backed by nature and is artificially handed by the society to heterosexuals after artificially disempowering the real natural men.

If you directly want to go the evidences that I have provided, then click below:

- Evidences from the nature: mammals and birds

- Evidence from mythology.

- Queer Bonobos

- Evidence from the modern west

- A rational argument

- Empirical evidence from a traditional society closer to nature

Other important posts:

- What is queer?

- What is femininity (and masculinity)?

- Important observations

- Definition of the term 'straight'

 

What happened, still deciding whether you're a man or not? Perhaps you'll never be seen around this board again. But do the male race a favour, don't call yourself a man again.

 

One important difference between normal male-female sex and heterosexuality is that while the former is primarily geared for procreation, the latter is primarily for pleasure. In fact procreation is seen as a burden by heterosexuality, and one of the important missions of heterosexual societies have been to rid male-female couples of the burden to reproduce. This has several negative repercussions on individuals, society and the environment. E.g. many hormonal pills harm women. Vasectomy harms men. Condoms harm the nature.

 

Or could it be that you are a woman and can only see what the men want you to see. I wouldn’t waste my time on a discussion like this if I was not sure of what I’m talking about.

But I will not argue with you too, because at least some women have a vested interest --- just like some men in perpetuating heteroseuxality. This includes aggressive women who want to control men and soft men who want to be controlled by women (heterosexuals).

Most of the antic historians wrote about Alexander and Hephaistian centuries after the demise of the Greek civilisation, almost into the Christian era. They were influenced by the prevailing sexual mores of the time. Most of the historians you have mentioned have been critised by scholars for their lack of professionalism and the use of 'imagination' in writing their accounts. Furthermore the original writings of the authors of Greek era have mostly been lost and the versions that do survive have been edited/ rewritten much after the end of the Greek civilisation.

If you know that they did after all share a love relationship, then you should immediately question -- why didn't these author write about their true relationship and hid it behind the garb of close friendship? Surely they had a motive......which points to efforts by those in power in those times to rewrite history.

The Hadrian-Antonius kind of relationship was not the norm. Hadrian was an emperor. He could do whatever he wanted. Plus he happened in the Roman era -- much after the end of the Greek civilisation. Adolescent boys were 'married' off to youths slightly older than them (around 5 years older) in the Greek era, a perfectly harmless practise (not that there was something wrong about Hadrian loving Antonious).

You can. The fact that it has been destroyed, a knowledge about who destroyed them and an inkling about their motives tell their own story --- like a murderer leaves his clues.

This is from Bagemihl:

1. Can you sum up apples and needles. Birds show a behaviour close to heterosexuality --- I have mentioned in my first page (although, none of it is without procreation). They have a minority of birds up to 10% that have same sex bonds.

On the other hands many mammals including apes, Giraffes, sheep etc. have been known to exhibit around 95% sexual bonding between males.

An average of all the animal species does not mean anything. If you take an average of heterosexual behaviour (of no sex with males the figure will not be more than 1%).

2. I've quoted Bagemihl and he has done some good work. He has dug out a lot of secrets that were earlier purposefully hidden from us. But there may be more to find out than what Bagemihl has found. Afterall he is a self-identified gay researcher and he is likely to have homosexual/ heterosexual biases. Most gay men like heterosexual men believe that roughly 10% of population is 'homosexual' and the rest are 'heteroseuxal'.

3. I have some other sources which prove amply that sexual need amongst male mammals for each other is as high as 100%, but that is a topic for another thread. This thread is to discuss heterosexuality.

 

Woah…..!

I assure you there are easier ways of finding the truth. But the standard ways of conducting scientific researches may have to be changed a bit. There are enough evidences around that point at the truth.

What gives humans the right to treat animals with cruelty?

In any case, there are enough immoral experiments going on with humans to support heterosexuality. The U.S. has been grafting strips on a trial basis as permanent contraception on millions of women in the third world countries. These strips are supposed to cause cancer.

No experiment that can remove the miseries and pain of countless human beings can be deemed immoral just because it involves sex.

No human society before Christianity ever believed that humans are different from animals. Sure, we have made a civilisation that has taken us far from our nature. But deep down the animal in us lives.

I remember (vaguely) a quote from a learned man. It went something like this:
“An average animal in its life just lives to eat, sleep and have sex. An average human lives just for that.”

Just because we use plates and spoons to eat does not make us essentially different (or superior!). It is only an exceptional human being who rises above the basic survival instincts.

Fine. Fair enough. Let’s end the discussion at this point. And we can carry on the other part in a different thread. Let’s just say that there is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature.

 

Your attempts at distraction will not work. I want you to show solid evidence to back up this statement from you. (Only then will I leave you alone.)

"Heterosexuality only happens in a society which is forcibly made mixed gender by instituting women into male spaces. The traditonal gender and sexual roles of men about sex with women is intensified in such settings and they now have to have relationships with women in order to prove they are ‘men’. Earlier they were just required to have sex with women (or claim to have had sex or just be interested) and even earlier what was needed as proof of manhood was a child (son!)."

Now show us your proof - if you can.

 

So you're back.

Sure, I'll explain what I've said (if that's what you mean by proof!). But that is part of the discussion, not the challenge I put to you. You want to avoid that. Fine! But I hope you've learnt your lesson.

You ask a man on the street in any non-westernised, non-heterosexualised country and ask the person if he is a heterosexual. Chances are he'll look at you like you're crazy. You explain to him that a heterosexual is a person who is attracted only to a person of the opposite sex, he'll think you're crazier. Non westerners don't have a concept of there being people who are attracted in particular ways. There are people who have various preferences as far as sexual activities are concerned, but that's just different tastes like some like potato better some like meat.

Societies have been putting pressure on men for a long time to mate with women, and that is why sex with women has traditionally been tied with social manhood and an important pre-condition for accepting the person socially as a man is for him to prove that he can sexually 'satisfy' a woman. Accordingly men in traditional societies have channelised their life into being able to satisfy women and produce a son. But once they did that they were free to be themselves. In traditional societies its a rare man who falls in love and has an emotional relationship with his wife. Most have only a sexual relationship with their wives/ mistresses. And there is a lot of male bonding and several sexual bonds flourish secretly within this male solidarity. Masculine men naturally lack a capability to emotionally bond with women, so they can't really be heterosexual until they are forced to be.

A heterosexual society seeks to consolidate for the benefit of a few the powers that came to them because of traditional sexual roles of men -- especially that about servicing women sexually. For this it seeks to enforce heterosexuality on men by changing the basic structure of the society, by changing social values and customs and enforcing 'heterosexual' customs/ spaces. It especially seeks to break men from men so that it can force them to bond with women. All male-only spaces are destroyed and everything becomes heterosexual --- from schools to gyms to swimming pools. People are expected to date the opposite sex and if you don't you run the risk of being isolated as being 'gay' --- another heterosexual concept. And of course there is no question of now sexually relating with another guy without being isolated as 'gay'. This is what is meant by the gender and sexual roles of men being intensified.

All this has been discussed earlier. If you'd only care to read.
specifically points regarding men's pressures have been brought up on page 1 in my reply to mystech, page 3 in reply to Tom2 and then from page 4 onwards it is full of discussion about male social pressures to be heterosexual. So read them, and then if you disagree say why you do. Then only can we proceed. I'm not going to rewrite another 10 pages everytime a new person walks into the thread.

And if you want to discuss without caring to read, then don't just ask me to prove. Take one statement at a time, tell me why you disagree with the statement and then I can give my arguments for it.

 

No, I didn't as you to explain what you said, I want you give us external PROOF of your statements I quoted. Provide an internet link, give us the title of a book, give us the name of some recognized expert with credentials, anything besides just your thoughts. They don't carry any weight at all with most of the people here.