Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
I say, steady on James... There are rules about posting links to that sort of material.
Can I ban you now?
Can I ban you now?
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Buddha1 said:
But surely, were that claim in anyway true, how exactly does society as it stands, in your opinion, come into being in the first place?
Societies have to form at some point, presumably at the very beginning. Now, if your assertion is true, this original conglomeration of peoples into "Society" must have been made up exclusively of individuals free from these sorts of social conditioning factors you yourself site which could only have come into play after society was first formed.
That being the case, these Natural Men as you call them, would have been calling the shots, making the rules, setting the standards by which society forms - so how come everything's as "artificial" as your position claims?
Where did us unnatural Heterosexuals come from, if the sociological structures we initially must have originated were populated by real Natural ones, such as your self...?
Buddha1 said:
And my dad told me once, "Real men don't wear makeup." His supporting statements would include something similar, "because it makes you look like a fruit." (it goes without saying that he didn't think I looked like an orange, but maybe an orange in an apple's world.) :bugeye: Yet my argument is that man being masculine has nothing to do with makeup (despite the fact that a man deviating might be more courageous than the other men) rather it has to do with existing with integrity.
Your statement "heterosexuality is queer" is quite correct, in that constraining yourselves to an absolute in sexual context is a sociocultural behaviour. This is a forced impression that hetero's hump the one with the opposite genitals (innie or outtie as per belly button logic) despite the presence of fascial hair.
These 'sexualities' may be something that we can all agree on, but there is a question that you may wish to ask yourself. Is this worth taking a stand on? We are essentially trying to break down a category or stereotype, and honestly I don't think you understand that it is going to take another 50 years to see this stand through to a more logical end.
Gay or straight - maybe it would be a good idea to have some sort of concept of broadcasting what we would personally prefer in a sexual context. Then again, we could just allow for sleeping with whatever, and once in a while pop a baby out.
Don't forget to grow fascial hair please. This goes for everyone, regardless of gender, and preference.
VitalOne wrote...
No proof necessary.
Especially to those who require clarification as to the addressee of a comment. DUH... DUH...
And so, seriously,
Surely in the beginnings of the definition of not only polarized roles, but of society, there were some ambient, physical, real if you like, factors determining the initial sexotypes (yes, Ok, I admit I made that word up, but if it works...).
It seems that it is a Darwinian progression that brought such a state of affairs from one man hitting a woman over the head and dragging her off to have his way, to the (dare I say it?) enforced stereotypes with which we now live.
It has been a rolling ball, over thousands of years, amd we cannot attribute blame against one sex for having enforced this state if we do not deliver proportionalte blame to the other sex for having allowed it to be so.
Over just a hundred years, the lines definite to sexual control have moved an incredible amount. You may not have noticed, but they're moving again.
That is not to say that 'man' is right to have perpetuated what once was, but equally, if 'woman' had kicked up a fuss a little earlier, perhaps this discussion would not be taking place?
No proof necessary.
Especially to those who require clarification as to the addressee of a comment. DUH... DUH...
And so, seriously,
Surely in the beginnings of the definition of not only polarized roles, but of society, there were some ambient, physical, real if you like, factors determining the initial sexotypes (yes, Ok, I admit I made that word up, but if it works...).
It seems that it is a Darwinian progression that brought such a state of affairs from one man hitting a woman over the head and dragging her off to have his way, to the (dare I say it?) enforced stereotypes with which we now live.
It has been a rolling ball, over thousands of years, amd we cannot attribute blame against one sex for having enforced this state if we do not deliver proportionalte blame to the other sex for having allowed it to be so.
Over just a hundred years, the lines definite to sexual control have moved an incredible amount. You may not have noticed, but they're moving again.
That is not to say that 'man' is right to have perpetuated what once was, but equally, if 'woman' had kicked up a fuss a little earlier, perhaps this discussion would not be taking place?
Last edited:
Oh I see, it’s about “truth”, is it? About “empowering” people? If there was any doubt that this thread was simply your attempt to preach your personal world view, then surely there is none now. What was that you were you saying about peoples’ motives? <img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif">Buddha1 said:
Any resemblance between this thread and science is purely coincidental.
<img src="http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/laugh.gif"> Yes deary, whatever you say. <img src="http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/xyxthumbs.gif"><P>Buddha1 said:
Buddha1 said:
I've seen women put the biggest idiots in charge of their own families, and I've seen such idiots as bosses at workplaces. Who is more likely to disable all men from achieving their potential? Someone who is competent and keeps the family or workplace functional, or someone whose worst decisions, inspired by anger, alcohol, and drugs, are holy writ and unshakable by any form of reason?
I'm not sure what real masculinity or femininity is, outside of being competent in one's role, chosen or otherwise. It is not competence when someone explodes at the slightest sign that a subordinate might be showing independence. It is not competence when someone is frightened by a subordinate showing intelligence or competence. Neither is sabotaging someone's work or life. People who have these problems are buffoons. They are not intelligent, they are not leaders, they are the bane (poison) of human existence and drive the sum of human accomplishment downhill.
It has a lot to do with sexuality. Surrendering your sexuality to the control of the church, the government, and the screeching cold-taloned hag is the worst crime that a man or a woman can do to himself or herself. When they belittle your sexuality they are adding insult to injury.
James R said:
With pleasure:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=893342#post893342
Anyone who wants to discuss that issue can use that thread which is still open inspite of efforts by some frustrated wimps to sabotage it.
I will answer all points raised in sincerety, although because of the attempts to sabotage by the above mentioned people I have decided not to entertain insincere or disruptive messages.
regards
esp said:Does this mean that you think my mother is masculine?
I think I need to qualify my statment. Thank you for pointing that out. My area of expertise is male gender and sexuality. I do not have deep enough understanding of the female gender/ sexuality.
But one thing is sure, that an emotional relationship with a man puts women in touch with their masculinity --- and over a period of time masculinises them.
But none can say with such surity whether one's parents are heterosexual or not. A social identity is one thing. People choose lifestyles which are supported by the society. In any case the identities of sexual orientation are quite artificial and non-existent in nature.
Of couse all these points are up for discussion.
Hey Buddha1, i was reading with much interest the last few pages of your oter thread. i see you have ha a taste of that dreadful troll 'Light'.......it might be wise to just ignore 'it'.....though i spose he she has the right to speak. tough never has anything to say, just accuses, and asks for 'proof', when its obvious he wouldn't know proof if sHe saw it. should be seen n not heard though
i very much am fascinated with your theories. they make a pleasant plausible sense. for tere is nothin worse than te'heterosexual' man who hates 'fags'....nuthin!
i haven't noticed you use te term 'bisexual'....any reason?
i very much am fascinated with your theories. they make a pleasant plausible sense. for tere is nothin worse than te'heterosexual' man who hates 'fags'....nuthin!
i haven't noticed you use te term 'bisexual'....any reason?
duendy said:
Never fear, Duendy, I'm right here. Keeping an eye on both of you nut cases.
And yes, I will always demand proof. Any idiot can claim anything they like, but that doesn't make it so. You could claim the Moon does not exist but that in no way makes it fact. This topic is just like that claim. He offers NOTHING but his own thoughts and words to support it. Talk and words are both cheap and completely worthless without something to back them up. (An eternal truth which both of you fail to grasp.)
Light said:Never fear, Duendy, I'm right here. Keeping an eye on both of you nut cases.
me:
And yes, I will always demand proof. Any idiot can claim anything they like, but that doesn't make it so.
me::meanwhile...YO aint got a ONE original idea in that head of yours
You could claim the Moon does not exist but that in no way makes it fact. This topic is just like that claim. He offers NOTHING but his own thoughts and words to support it.
me::i am not saying he does. but so what if he did and what he says makes plausible sense? still go runnin for your science books? you unoriginALish chile!
Talk and words are both cheap and completely worthless without something to back them up. (An eternal truth which both of you fail to grasp.)
eternal truth my batty. you wouldn't know an eternal truth if it slapped you.....ahhhhh, that reminds me
now mr or mrs Light whatever yer name is. i have no furthe intention of this becoming another derailed thread due to your hysterical imput. i will now leae it to Buddha1 to deal with you. he sure can take care of himself. BUT i may interject when and if i needs to, and of course will have SENSIBLE discusion with the other INTELLIEGENT debaters
"Expertise"? You're an expert? :bugeye:Buddha1 said:
Hmmmmm, let’s see, having expertise in “sexuality” implies that you are a psychologist. Is your degree in psychology? Postgrad, maybe? Or perhaps you are medically trained? Are you in psych medicine? A psychiatrist, maybe? In which medical institution do you work?
Then again, having expertise in “gender” implies that you have training in the developmental biology of sex determination. I’m a developmental biologist! If you want to talk about the genetics of sex determination during embryonic development, then I’m all ears. Is your background in genetics like me or have you come from a physiology/biochemistry background? All this large body of work you refer to must mean you are at least postgraduate, if not postdoctoral. In which academic institution do you work? I presume you are published, so where can I read some of your work?<P>
Buddha1 said:
Who artificially handed heterosexuals the artifical power to artificially disempower 'real natural men' whoever they may be? Man this is some kind of sucky challenge. I am heterosexual, now what on earth are you going on about?
peace
c20
humpppgh...its a wonder you capitalize my name.... a Freudian slip maybe??...do you really Lurve me Light?
I find Buddha1 VASTLY VASTLY more interesting, intelligent, insightful, individualistic, fun, creative, eloquent,
understanding,and inspiring than you here who simply display complete hostile arrogance, and insult. Who seem closed off to exploring about reality. which is really what REAL creative people, and real scientists do.
I hope he isn't intimidated and returns soon, for if it was up to you lot, this forum would be like a fascist dictatorship! i can see you in uniform as i type actually...
I find Buddha1 VASTLY VASTLY more interesting, intelligent, insightful, individualistic, fun, creative, eloquent,
understanding,and inspiring than you here who simply display complete hostile arrogance, and insult. Who seem closed off to exploring about reality. which is really what REAL creative people, and real scientists do.
I hope he isn't intimidated and returns soon, for if it was up to you lot, this forum would be like a fascist dictatorship! i can see you in uniform as i type actually...
- Status