Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[Buddha1]

Wh not say 95% of men have homosexual tendancys? Which is just about what you are saying.

I'd never put it that way.

The word homosexuality or homosexual is a misleading term designed to validate the ideology of heterosexuality. Homosexuality in effect refers to marginalised and feminised male sexual need for men. It is what remains after the society exterminates same-sex desires out of the mainstream masculine male society.

 

[Buddha1]

Scientists are selected by the environment to be good at investigating the world, not to tolerate fools or foolishness.

And just how do the 'selected scientists' decide what's foolishness?

 

[Buddha1]

Homosexuality in effect refers to marginalised and feminised male sexual need for men. It is what remains after the society exterminates same-sex desires out of the mainstream masculine male society.

Let me rephrase it:

Homosexuality is artificially marginalised, demasculated, feminised and disempowered male-male sexual behaviour/ desire.

Heterosexuality on the other hand is artificially universalised, masculinised and powered male-female sexual behaviour/ desire.

In effect, natural masculinity is artifically extracted from male-male sexual bonds/ desires through complicated social processes and artificially injected into male-female sexual bonds/ desires through the same social processes. This mechanism pressurises the majority of men into foregoing their natural instincts, disempowers the remainder which sticks to their instincts and unfairly powers a few.

My idea of discussing these issues here is to determine the exact details of these processes in order to expose the heterosexual ideology --- something I am unable to do under a generalised heading like "Heterosexuality is unnatural".

 

[Buddha1]

So why not just stae that alst all men have homosexual tendenacy's?

Yet how 'blissfully' are women, homosexual men, and 'unstraight' heterosexual men unaware of this.

 

[Buddha1]

So why not just stae that alst all men have homosexual tendenacy's? That is fairly known to alot of people and it isn't so shuned. Other then stating it like we are full blown gay but still have sex with women because we have to. I know you never did say that but with a title of the thread like "Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality" with the comments you said that some 95% of men are homosexual. Now that isnt exactly how it was worded but i do not not have enough time at the moment to do the quoting. Wh not say 95% of men have homosexual tendancys? Which is just about what you are saying. So if you are saying his then i beleive that there is pretty good evidence of that.

Why should men have to suppress their feelings for men or be forced to express it in helpless, muted or negative ways --- for the fear of isolation into 'homosexuality'?

Why is this fear generated? How is it generated? What is it's purpose? Who generates this fear? When did it all start?

Going behind social masks to study what is invisible is not so unscientific and even if it is who cares as long as it is to find out the truth.

After all, why shouldn't men be allowed to live as nature meant them to be --- whatever that is?

What use is it to live in a society if instead of looking after the basic needs of its individual members it seeks to block them -- without any purpose whatsoever (but to power a few!)?

What use are religion and science if they easily become instruments in the hands of the anti-nature forces, in their 'mission' to block our basic needs by generating uncessary fears!


Don't you think it is an important and socially relevant subject to study --- especially for men. Because a lie at this vast scale has to have several hidden motives and far reaching ramifications for men and women than is visible to us.

 

[Buddha1]

Biological Development of Sexuality

I am propounding the following theory based on evidences that have been given the stamp of approval establihsed science. There is a chance that I'm missing something, or lack an information that can totally alter the direction of this analysis. I would request the knowledgable experts following this to help me see right from wrong, by correcting me wherever I go wrong (please only a logical and scientific discussion).

I think a rough logical sequence of the development of sexuality can be described as follows:

1. In the beginning there was just one 'sex' amongst 'animals' which had sex for pleasure and bonding, and did not use any sexual process for reproduction. Reproduction had other means, e.g. --- in very simple organims it was achieved by just dividing oneself into two.

That sex was there, without being associated with reproduction emphatically proves two things:

- That reproduction is not the sole purpose of life/ biology as functions/ traits completely unrelated with reproduction abound in nature.

- That the primary form of sex or the primary sexual drive is between those who are the same, which is totally unrelated with reproduction.

- And that this primary sexual drive/ sex had an important biological role to play, since it was (is) there in such large numbers.

2. Then came sexual dimorphism and species got divided into male and female because this ensured a better gene pool and not only a better chance of 'survival' (as Darwin was obsessed with) but a more meaningful survival.

Male and female started living almost as two different species but who met briefly to produce offsprings.

Like I mentioned ealier, sex got split into:


a. Sex for bonding: i.e. bonding with the 'same', which in the new scenario became sexual bonding between males (and between females). The majority of the population (near total) carried this basic drive which has been there since almost the beginning of life (as even the simplest forms of organisms with only one 'sex', have been reported to have 'sex'). But apparently there were a few exceptions.


b. Sex for reproduction: This became the secondary function of sex. Nature invested small and temporary secondary sexual need for females in some males (as per its needs of procreation) so that at a particular time in their life they can mate with females to produce offsprings.

The nature left the core group of males untouched by this secondary sexuality, because they were meant to serve the important function of keeping the male group together ---

Nature invested in a much smaller number of males a strong and lasting sexual need for females. This excess sexual need had nothing to do with procreating. It gave these males the biological/ social role of being the link between two separate groups of males and females.

There was however, an extremely small proportion of males who had the outer sexual organs of males, but did not have the primary male sexual drive (i.e. to bond sexually with the males). These males did not prefer to live in the male groups and had other 'inner' and in some cases 'outer' qualities that made them truly both males and females. It would be wrong to consider this group as an accident. Everything has an important place in nature, we just need to find out what.

 

[Buddha1]

What causes Heterosexuality?

Nature invested in a much smaller number of males a strong and lasting sexual need for females. This excess sexual need had nothing to do with procreating. It gave these males the biological/ social role of being the link between two separate groups of males and females.

There was however, an extremely small proportion of males who had the outer sexual organs of males, but did not have the primary male sexual drive (i.e. to bond sexually with the males). These males did not prefer to live in the male groups and had other 'inner' and in some cases 'outer' qualities that made them truly both males and females. It would be wrong to consider this group as an accident. Everything has an important place in nature, we just need to find out what.

If the above description of development of sexuality is even partially correct, it follows that it is not male sexual need for males which has a cause. It is an inherent drive. It's actually the sexual need for females that is an add on. Especially, it it is an intense need for emotional bonding with a female. It means that such an addition is caused by something.

And when the primary sexual need is absolutely lacking, it must have a cause that needs to be determined. Although most of heterosexuality in human societies is culturally brought about and is only superficial (a sham!), real heterosexual traits may have a genetic basis. There may be a gene that stops man's primary sexual drive from coming into play. Although it may also be mutilated by social forces.

This should be the real concern of scientists --- not to find out the 'cause' of so-called 'homosexuality' (a misnomer) which is the essence of manhood.

 

[Buddha1]

Quality vs Quantity

If a variant of an species, lets say humans, bears "twentyples" (20 individuals in a single time, if my word make up isn't enough well constructed), they would be something like 3cm aborted living fetuses each. That surely wouldn't be any adapted.

Sexual need for men denotes quality not because it limits procreation (that's only a side advantage --- it's not the purpose of such a need), but because it gives meaning to life (to discuss and pinpoint this meaning would be a useful debate).

The purpose of male-female sex is to provide life.The purpose of same-sex sex is to provide meaning to life. Both are crucial to biology. Unless there is meaning to life, life becomes a burden. Living beings just don't want to live for the sake of living. There are enough evidences to show that if life loses its meaning, animals willingly end their lives.

Although meaning of life (quality) is dependant to a large extent on same-sex bonds (esp. in the case of males), reproduction (quantity) is not dependant on male-female sex (and no role of male-female bonds in this at all!) as far as the larger natural process is concerned. Tommorrow, it may choose an even better method of procreation than sex.

Same-sex bonds have always been there --- even before sexual reproduction happened, and it is likely to be there even after nature finds an even superior way to reproduce than sex.

 

[Buddha1]

Quality vs Quantity
.....The purpose of same-sex sex is to provide meaning to life.

To block this important purpose of life (by marginalising same-sex bonds into homosexuality) is to disrupt nature and to work against our biology.

At the risk of digressing momentarily into spirituality --- it is also a grave 'sin' against 'god'.

To engineer an extreme increase in the quantity of life through an extreme annihiliation of quality (the stuff heterosexuality is made up of) is an even more serious act against nature and biology.

And it is an even graver 'sin' against 'god' --- whatever name you call it by (including 'science'!).

 

[Buddha1]

What causes Heterosexuality?

If the above description of development of sexuality is even partially correct, it follows that it is not male sexual need for males which has a cause. It is an inherent drive. It's actually the sexual need for females that is an add on. Especially, it it is an intense need for emotional bonding with a female. It means that such an addition is caused by something.

And when the primary sexual need is absolutely lacking, it must have a cause that needs to be determined. Although most of heterosexuality in human societies is culturally brought about and is only superficial (a sham!), real heterosexual traits may have a genetic basis. There may be a gene that stops man's primary sexual drive from coming into play. Although it may also be mutilated by social forces.

This should be the real concern of scientists --- not to find out the 'cause' of so-called 'homosexuality' (a misnomer) which is the essence of manhood.

It is clear from the above posts that it is not 'different' to like men -- even when it's exclusive. If anything is different it is a more than a casual isexual interest in women, and it's an exclusive sexual interest in women (that excludes a sexual interest in men) which is really, in the natural sense 'different'.

In other words it is not different or queer to like a man. Rather it is different and queer not to like a man. It would be perfectly alright to say that it is unmanly not to like a man. While it is the most manly thing to like a man.

And it is also 'different' and 'unmanly' when a man likes women so much that it interferes with his capacity to bond sexually with men. This is useful and positive only to the extent that it happens in the natural context.

 

[Buddha1]

Quality vs Quantity

There are some obvious benefits of increasing the quantity of a species. All of these benefits are 'outer' and 'physical'/ 'material' in nature. But these benefits have a cost --- nothing comes free. And the cost is in terms of the quality of life that it's individuals live. This cost is 'inner', invisible and non-material in nature --- it concerns things like bonds, love and happiness --- which cannot be seen or measured. Therefore, it is easy ignore these costs in the short run.

One obvious benefit of increasing quantity of a species is increased security because there is safety in numbers --- this may have been the biggest reason why men were initially forced to mate with women on a universal and regular basis. Especially when the ancient humans left their place in small numbers and tried to settle in remote continents that were previously uninhabited.

But an unnatural act is an unnatural act, and there is a limit to which you can go against nature. One must create a balance between cost and benefits --- and the invisibility of a cost doesn't make the benefits less expensive. The biggest drawback of exploiting and manipulating nature for the assumed benefit of mankind by human brain is that men do not know when to stop.

Heterosexuality is a near extreme point of an artificial mechanism started by humans at an early point of civilisation. The only thing waiting to come now is the complete subordination, demasculation and disempowerment of men, before the entire thing collapses on human beings. It will be a disaster.

 

[Buddha1]

You can gauge your success by the number of enemies that you make.

But its the nature of your enemies and the kind of opposition that they put up that finally puts a feather in your cap!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You just wrote 14 posts in a row.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

You just wrote 14 posts in a row.

If you want a much bigger challenge, try counting how many unsupported statements Buddha1 offered as “facts” in those 14 posts. I tried but there are so many I kept losing count. <P>

 

[jayleew]

All: You must understand what Buddah is talking about before you can appreciate his position. I have debated him on nearly all his counts. All of his perceived mumbo jumbo stems from one question: What is sexuality, and why do people become homosexual or heterosexual?

He has studied teenage boys and his findings are consistent with many teenage boys that we can question in our own cultures. Let's face it, when we are a teenager, we are searching for what we are, including our sexuality. At some point, we decided what we will be based on how we felt about being this or that. The topic of sexuality is in question in our early years, and not every teenage boy is going to open up and talk about how they really feel about homosexuality.

If you take what he is saying and not overgeneralize (which Buddah is bad at doing), and focus on teenagers and their experimentation with their identity, you will find Buddah has some interesting points.

In short, I think if we pulled a group of boys or girls aside and got them to open up, we might be surprised how much they are searching for their identity, sexual or otherwise. Buddah is saying that certain unnatural pressures influence the kids to be heterosexual or homosexual, but we aren't born that way if we are included in the animal kingdom.

 

[Ophiolite]

I understand that Jaylew, and I applaud you for trying to bring some calm and good sense to this discussion. However, it does not alter the following observations, which I perceive as facts:
1) Bhudda is very ineffective at conveying his ideas.
2) His broad, sweeping generalisations are wholly offputting.
3) His assignment of numbers, based upon limited data, and which conflict with virtually every worker in the field, renders his thesis unworthy of attention.

He hasn't defined his terms. He has distorted and misinterpreted the works of others. He seem incapable of self criticism, though he allegedly welcomes external criticism.

And at the end of it all his basic claim does not match the facts.

 

[jayleew]

I understand that Jaylew, and I applaud you for trying to bring some calm and good sense to this discussion. However, it does not alter the following observations, which I perceive as facts:
1) Bhudda is very ineffective at conveying his ideas.
2) His broad, sweeping generalisations are wholly offputting.
3) His assignment of numbers, based upon limited data, and which conflict with virtually every worker in the field, renders his thesis unworthy of attention.

He hasn't defined his terms. He has distorted and misinterpreted the works of others. He seem incapable of self criticism, though he allegedly welcomes external criticism.

And at the end of it all his basic claim does not match the facts.

Yup, I tried to tell him that too. 1,2, and 3 are correct about him.

What he brings to the table is his social working with many of today's youth. All of his research is in one part of the world and in one age group, which really limits his credibility, but he has some interesting points to defining today's social groups, and the negative affects of society on the individual.

Buddah's best point is that heterosexuals need to stand up and put a stop to pushing male-female sex upon the society, if they are truly heterosexual. The media/society has created an identity called "heterosexual" and "homosexaul" and they are masquerades of the heterosexual and homosexual identities, and has confused the terms and muddled the meanings. The identities are unnatural.

 

[Buddha1]

1) Bhudda is very ineffective at conveying his ideas.

I don't completely disagree. I may have some difficulty conveying my ideas. My posts do tend to be loooong. But then one has to work with one's drawbacks. And if you consider the difficulty of the subject I'm dealing with......

2) His broad, sweeping generalisations are wholly offputting.

Oh, and the broad sweeping generalisations of the society, the mdeia ..... the concept of sexual orientation ...... that does not bother you?

You can easily show me my place by proving me wrong. Why do you think it's not worth your trouble to do that, even when you can't stop yourself from making unsupported accusations in posts after posts?

Eventually, a neutral reader will judge this discussion on the basis of the kind of arguments put forth by both the sides, and baseless accusations or slandering or 'abusive' words will not really go in the favour of your stand.

3) His assignment of numbers, based upon limited data, and which conflict with virtually every worker in the field, renders his thesis unworthy of attention.

Then why am I getting so much attention from you? Why do you find it difficult to ignore my thread? Why do you have to come back again and again to remind me that I'm a fool? If you're coming anyways, and wasting your time on me, why don't you use some of that time to summarise point by point for me, as to why and how I'm over-generalising and over-estimating? It'll be so easier on both of us. All of us.

(By the way, lot of workers in my field will agree with me......I think if I give it sometime, I can even get things from the net from people saying much the same things as I am saying --- though maybe in different, more 'acceptable' words.)

He hasn't defined his terms. He has distorted and misinterpreted the works of others.

Example?

He seem incapable of self criticism,

Example?

.....and do you have the capability to do an inward examination of your own self and say honestly that you have shown the openness you demand from me!

though he allegedly welcomes external criticism.

Have you tried to criticise me objectively before you make that claim?

And at the end of it all his basic claim does not match the facts.

Why do 'selected scientists' avoid a discussion when 'preferred facts' are challenged?

In the end, I can only say that I sincerely believe in what I'm saying. But, if you have logical reasons to doubt me --- how come you have not come up with even one valid opposition?

There are others who sincerely doubt me, and therefore are discussing things out!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Why do 'selected scientists' avoid a discussion when 'preferred facts' are challenged?

Because you don't follow the general rules of discussion as was explained in previous posts.

 

[Buddha1]

Because you don't follow the general rules of discussion as was explained in previous posts.

"as was explained in previous posts" is too vague. If you specify those general rules, and if I find them valid and sincere (and not just to disrupt or avoid the actual discussions) I will try to follow them.