Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[Buddha1]

My addition to this was just a point made to an explaination of animals acting monosexual (since "Homo" wouldn't fit animals) notibly the supposed record cases involve "Zoo's". This means such animals are in a confined quarters that is infact an unnatural environment, afterall in a truly Darwinistic environment those animals would have the capacity to choose a mate and go futher afield if they couldn't find one. In a zoo the conformities of the walls stop them from being able to travel.

For the most part, I have not used studies on 'zoo animals', so I don't see how the example of zoo is relevant. But let me tell you the reality of zoos in another post.

Difficulty in making wild animals mate heterosexually is a big problem in zoos.

And it is any wonder? The scientists go on the premise that animals are 'heterosexual' like the humans --- and as per the theory of Darwin.

So they bring in a male, and bring in a female from the wild and put them togther. And then.......well nothing happens. So then they try to make up several far fetched excuses and reasons for the same. E.g. the temperature is not proper, the animals are not comfortable and what not! They don't realise that males will only approach females when it is time for them. And the time rarely happens. It certainly doesn't happen whenever humans want to happen --- even if the female isi ready.

They showed a programme recently about a pair of apes in a zoo in Mexico. The male and female have both been brought from different zoos. Everyone is keeping their fingers crossed hoping for them to mate. They described the male as liking the female.....and hopefully one day will want to have sex with her. The male however is so far not interested.

In a programme on leopards on T.v. they showed how a full grown adult dominant male repulsed the calls of a female in heat because he just didn't want it at that point in time. (some years later he did mate with a female.....but for a very short time......and as soon as a potential prey came, he showed the female the door.....and wouldn't share his food with the female......just growled her off.

There is an ancient tradition of articial insemination employed by the farming communities in some parts of eastern europe for cows. To artificially inseminate cows they need the semen of the bull. So why don't they just put the bulls and cows together. Because, that rarely works enough. So how do they collect the semen of the bulls? Do they force the bull and cow in a sexual position to arouse the bull? No that doesn't happen easily too. But there is one sure shot way that has not failed to work for hundreds of years. They just put all the male bulls in a circle with their mouth touching the other bulls behind. This forced sexual position instantly gets the bulls into a sexually aroused position, which never fails. Then the farmers just milk the bulls into an artificial vagina.

In the thread on "there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature" Metakron described how his I think biologist friend made up artificial female pheromones and was so confident that the male will respond to it and will achieve sexual arousal so that they could collect his semen. It just did not work on the horse.

Surprisingly, many domesticated animals are made more or less heterosexual......though you may still not be able to force them to mate as and when you want......you can just make them comfortable to be around with the females or to teach them to bond with them, by 'training' them and keeping them away from males.

You have to remember the case of how they make domesticated horses 'heterosexual'.

 

[Stryder]

I did miss out another Darwinist point, Asexuals. There are many amphibians and reptiles that have the capacity to "alter" sex when their population becomes too filled with one particular sex. Although I'm not suggesting this is another reason why Homosexual's act homosexual, mearly a point about nature in general.

You also missed my suggestion of "Bonding", it's very important to bond with a partner, if you haven't that bond then you won't be partners simply. Therefore the animals in the zoo might share a bond because of being in a confined place (Which is where the suggestion of Homosexuality within prison came from.), that bond of course is unnatural because of the confinement with the animals so they make do with who they have to live with.

As soon as zoo keepers attempt to bring in a "Normal" replacement, they've somehow got to seperate that homosexual bond thats build up, I know it's bad to you to see a homosexual couple split artificially, however the reason they were a couple was also down to artificiality.

 

[Anomalous]

....I know it's bad to you to see a homosexual couple split artificially, however the reason they were a couple was also down to artificiality.

So U r tryina say us that Buddha1 is a captive animal or has been in male captivity ?

 

[Buddha1]

Good gosh U r calling Women Wimps ? Dont U have a mom or sister or umm no U cant have a daughter ?

So you want to be among whores? Don't you have a mom or sister or a daughter? What do you do with all the sons and daughters that you make with those whores?

 

[Buddha1]

I did miss out another Darwinist point, Asexuals. There are many amphibians and reptiles that have the capacity to "alter" sex when their population becomes too filled with one particular sex. Although I'm not suggesting this is another reason why Homosexual's act homosexual, mearly a point about nature in general.

If you make your suggestion it will be possible for me to reply.

You also missed my suggestion of "Bonding", it's very important to bond with a partner, if you haven't that bond then you won't be partners simply. Therefore the animals in the zoo might share a bond because of being in a confined place (Which is where the suggestion of Homosexuality within prison came from.), that bond of course is unnatural because of the confinement with the animals so they make do with who they have to live with.

There is no male-female bonding in the wild --- in most non-bird species. So there is no question of the male animal missing this in captivity.

In fact I've already shown that it is the other way round in captivity. Humans try to force heterosexuality in animals and force them to bond with the females. Animals don't take to it easiy --- unless they are forced like in their domestication (the example of horses and sheep)......and so mating in captivity of zoo animals has always been a problem........of course scientists brush it off by saying that it is because of temperature or this or that.......

Only if they could understand that most animals will not mate if they are made to bond heterosexually.

They will also not behave normally if they are kept away from male bonds and herds of males.

You need force to make animals bond heterosexually, which they don't usually apply in the case of zoos.

As soon as zoo keepers attempt to bring in a "Normal" replacement, they've somehow got to seperate that homosexual bond thats build up, however the reason they were a couple was also down to artificiality.

The only normal coupling in the wild is between males as has been shown by various examples. It is the heterosexual coupling which is abnormal in nature.

Like I have shown with examples that heterosexual coupling can only be brought about with force.

You have not shown any examples to prove your case.

I know it's bad to you to see a homosexual couple split artificially

I am not mistaken you're a moderator, and as a moderator it doesn't behove you to indulge in inappropriate discussion tactics --- like ascribing unfounded motives or reactions.

Although I'm not suggesting this is another reason why Homosexual's act homosexual, mearly a point about nature in general.

Please define 'homosexuality'? and a 'homosexual'?

 

[Anomalous]

So you want to be among whores? Don't you have a mom or sister or a daughter? What do you do with all the sons and daughters that you make with those whores?

So to U all women are whores ? and who said only women can be whores ? BTW Have U heard about something called Condom.

 

[Buddha1]

So to U all women are whores ? and who said only women can be whores ? BTW Have U heard about something called Condom.

Well any woman who sleeps with a man she is not married to is a 'whore' as per the definition of our society!

In the heterosexual society it can be taken to mean a woman who has sex with someone she is not in a long term romantic relationship with.

Condoms are unnatural. Any relationship that is based on condoms is unnatural!

 

[Anomalous]

...
Condoms are unnatural. Any relationship that is based on condoms is unnatural!

So that mean using condoms equates to not haing sex.

 

[Buddha1]

So that mean using condoms equates to not haing sex.

Pea-brained as usual. Having sex with condoms is having unnatural sex!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Pea-brained as usual. Having sex with condoms is like having unnatural sex.

What if you use a condom made of goat intestine?

 

[Buddha1]

What if you use a condom made of goat intestine?

The only natural sex will be which is supported by the natural anatomy of males and females --- not something dependant on man 'inventing' something artificial to work against nature!

 

[Buddha1]

Having sex with condoms is having unnatural sex!

Its having a kind of sex that is not intended or required or wanted by the nature!

It's an act against nature!

 

[Anomalous]

Its having a kind of sex that is not intended or required or wanted by the nature!

It's an act against nature!

Nope its not a act against the nature, if U were preprogrammed for it; But its just that the nature itself was twisted and we should straighten it up.

Nothin is perfect not even nature, except the awareness of perfection which inturn is actually relative.

 

[Buddha1]

Nope its not a act against the nature, if U were preprogrammed for it; But its just that the nature itself was twisted and we should straighten it up.

Nothin is perfect not even nature, except the awareness of perfection which inturn is actually relative.

The preprogramming you're referring to is social conditioning and social pressures.

The rest of your post shows that you basically have nothing logical to say about my point.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The only natural sex will be which is supported by the natural anatomy of males and females --- not something dependant on man 'inventing' something artificial to work against nature!

What about sex with a goat?

 

[Buddha1]

What about sex with a goat?

It is natural for one who cares for it. It doesn't affect nature one way or the other. There are several incidences of cross-species sex in the wild.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

What if you have sex with a dead goat?

 

[Buddha1]

Should say the same. It wouldn't exactly be normal. but doesn't affect nature.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

but having sex with a piece of a dead goat around your penis penetrating a woman is unnatural?

 

[Buddha1]

but having sex with a piece of a dead goat around your penis penetrating a woman is unnatural?

Yes, because it is brought about by unnatural and artificial conditions.

Unless it is sex meant for procreation.

Do you know of any animal species that do it?

Although if a few people were using sex with women for pleasure or bonding purposes, it would have been natural. I mean, what percentage of men have sex with goats?

But when most men do have sex with women for pleasure or for bonding, and there exists an extensive social mechanism to force (including extreme reward and punishment) and brainwash, them to do it, It does all add up to being UNNATURAL.