Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Roman said:
It's really the height of foolishness when men start believing in and relating with the stereotypes --- especially when the sterotypes are false and fabricated by the society to befool and control men. It's like falling headways into the trap.
Last edited:
Roman said:
One characteristic of real straights (I don't mean heterosexuals, but masculine men) is that as far as women are concerned, they prefer extremely feminine women. And as far as men are concened, masculinity in men turns them on.
But a real masculine man, on account of his masculinity is not interested in forming long term or committed relationships with women. On the other hand, if things were left to nature, is much more capable of forming such bonds with other masculine men.
Real heterosexuals (and homosexuals) on the other hand go for masculine women, who not only go to gyms but also walk stiff, are sexually and socially aggressive, dominant and controlling. Consequently these traits are glorified for women in a heterosexualised society.
But in terms of men, they get sexually attracted to (even when they don't admit to it!) to feminine, meterosexual men, especially men who wear make-up, walk with a gait or wear dresses. Consequently meterosexuality for men is glorified in a heterosexualised society.
It's true that real straight men have little interest in penetrative sex with men, with homosexuals or with heterosexuals --- whether active or passive. But it is not that they are incapable of enjoying anal stimulation once in a blue moon --- as a 'different' kind of pleasure. Biologically, they have the same extra-sensitive anal nerves that homosexuals and heterosexuals have. Of course social masculinity and conditioning might come in the way.
Heterosexuals and homosexuals on the other hand live for penetrative sex, and when they have sex with men/homosexuals/heterosexuals can only think about either anal or oral sex --- both ways.
When straight men have sex with women, they can't think of much else apart from vaginal penetration. Cuddling, oral, anal etc., etc. with women is not their cup of tea. Real heterosexual people enjoy the latter part much more than the penetration part.
Real straight men are not choosy at all when they want to have sex with women, except that they like extra feminine women. They tend to be promiscous with women. But with men they tend to be very choosy, monogamous and committed.
Real straights get put off by masculine, aggressive, dominant women just as much they get put off by feminine, meterosexual, made-up men with gaits. The very masculine inner spirit in women, and feminine inner spirit in men puts them off.
Real heterosexuals on the other hand tend to be choosy, monogamous and committed with women. But with men/ heterosexuals/ homosexuals they tend to be non-choosey, non-committal and promiscuous.
Of course I'm talking about the natural way of things. Social influences vastly work on these natural tendencies, especially altering the outward behaviour of men. But underneath or behind the scenes the signs of nature -- even if in mutilated/ suffocated forms are always visible, whether in a heterosexual society like the west or in a tradiotional non-heterosexual society.
Last edited:
You know, heterosexual society forces heterosexuality on people. Doesn't this mean that even those people who are naturally heterosexual, or at least normally much prefer sex with the other gender of human, either can't feel natural with it, or will feel some difficulty? Even if heterosexuality is natural to an individual, when it is forced on him or her, it becomes a rape, an imposition, something that is pushed into his life in an unnatural way. It is not much unlike trying to eat by taking the food into the anus. It might work, sort of, but it's just not the same. We know that food goes into the mouth in a certain natural manner. Love and sex have their own natural ways. Nothing is right when you are forced against those ways.
It really is a lot like that, and that's why people use the metaphors that they do to describe the process. The natural path to your natural erotic self does not include a whole bunch of individuals and institutions trying to force you onto the path that they claim is natural.
Don't even let me get started about disempowerment. The reason for so many attacks against so many men is not because they are dangerous. It is to remove their power to set things right when someone wants them to go wrong. The men who are slandered, broken down, "controlled", threatened into their state of existence, forced into incompetence, these men are not less likely to commit an act of violence. In that sense they are not safer. What they are less likely to do is to upset the status quo of the power structure.
This is unfortunate. It is self-destructive and it is destructive of the biosphere. It is why I always feel, when dominated by one of these people, like I've been told how to live and what to do by someone who is hellbent on committing suicide and taking the rest of the world with him or her.
This is unfortunate. It is self-destructive and it is destructive of the biosphere. It is why I always feel, when dominated by one of these people, like I've been told how to live and what to do by someone who is hellbent on committing suicide and taking the rest of the world with him or her.
It is true that in modern societies, procreation is partly seen as a burden, because it must happen at the time which people desire - not just any given time.
If I am not mistaken, several mammal species have been showing the same behaviour and do not only use sex to reproduce, but as well as for pleasure. I think there is no surprise in this: the higher the brain is developed, the more the level of self-consciousness rises, which leeds to desires previously unknown. This powerful force has made us overcome Nature for the greater part, creating another dimension to live in, i.e. cultural systems.
I've read your responses, and I appreciate your opinion on these matters of far reaching philosophical meaning. I will not say that I don't agree, nor agree. Some days I have a clear opinion about everything, some days I doubt everything. As far as our understanding of the world is concerned, I think we have a very long way to go. One way to view human history is from the perspective of both evolutionary theories and general system theory (cf. ludwig von bertalanffy). From an organismic point of view, society was just predestined to grow ever more complex ... however, it does not say anything on the "good" or "bad". In my opinion, our understanding of what we 'feel' is 'right' is only but cultural/environmental (as in family) based and has no real meaning for understanding history, nature, the future, etc. This is where science and ideology stand next to each other. Very difficult job it is not to mix those two in a debate. If you ask me, we human beings with a heart for science, simply expect to much from ourselves. We're simply not robots, but a super supersystem containing metasystems, sub-systems with emergent phenomena all over the place. With our paradoxal nature, we're not fit to do correct science. We don't know what we want
so you suggest we all turn gay and die out as result of this? you do realise men and women are actually built for sex right, like its what we do man, its called the natural way of life,
peace.
strange post
peace.
strange post
Buddha1:
Can you please explain to me how you differentiate the following classes of people:
Homosexuals
Heterosexuals
"Real straights (masculine men)"
"Meterosexual men"
"Straight men"
You seem to have a very personalised and unusual classification and labelling scheme which most people don't seem to share. That probably accounts for much of the disagreement you are encountering in this thread. But I'm sure if you can define your terms for us, we can sort out what you're talking about.
Also, are there different categories of women, similar to the above?
Can you please explain to me how you differentiate the following classes of people:
Homosexuals
Heterosexuals
"Real straights (masculine men)"
"Meterosexual men"
"Straight men"
You seem to have a very personalised and unusual classification and labelling scheme which most people don't seem to share. That probably accounts for much of the disagreement you are encountering in this thread. But I'm sure if you can define your terms for us, we can sort out what you're talking about.
Also, are there different categories of women, similar to the above?
jayleew said:
jayleew said:
Jaylee,
I think I must thank you, because you have given me a chance to organise my thoughts into a complete picture by discussing things threadbare and opposing me. In the numerous discussions I’ve had earlier on this board or the others, my contentions were too often accepted by the opponents too easily without debating --- depriving me of the chance to delve further or prove myself. This discussing process refines my thoughts and concretises them. Without you on this board, it would not be half as interesting or educating.
But at the same time I find your arguments in this case, unreasonable, illogical and biased. You are using, in a much subdued tones though, the technique adopted by ‘Light’. You are trying to confine me into a micro level discussion, (often bothering about the technical details upon things which are so obvious) which is hard to win. But nevertheless, it gives me an opportunity, like I said.
The true nature of men, particularly straight men, and especially concering their sexual needs --- something that the society has cunningly made the source of their social masculinity/ power, is almost impossible to ‘prove’ if you follow the ‘standard scientific methods’ --- of asking and taking the respondents for their words, or if you were to do a head count based on the sexual identities/ behaviour or attitudes claimed by the respondents. Therefore, it is no use here hiding behind proven ‘science’ (something you are not guilty of though --- yet!) --- at least at the micro/ individual level.
But it is possible to prove my assertions in an indirect way --- relying mostly (but not always) on external scientific, established ‘proofs’. But this can only be done at the macro level – not the micro level. And this is the method I’m going to use to prove myself. It is going to take sometime though.
I can repeat my assertions in brief here:
- Heterosexuality is unnatural for humans: A heterosexual society is not natural. Few men are naturally inclined to mate with women regularly (meaning a couple of times every year!). Most men are naturally inclined to mate with women only a couple of times in their life + many men are naturally inclined not to mate at all in their life --- including many alpha men.
-
As far as nature is concerned male-female desire sexual desire is temporary, transient and periodic --- whether it is intense or not. Further it is purely physical in nature and not emotional. All this means that it cannot sustain --- by itself --- a long term, committed man-woman bond. A strong Male-female sexual desire typically occurs in men during the latter part of youth as men approach middle-age. Male-female sex is primarily geared towards facilitating reproduction, but only as much as the nature can sustain.
- Masculine men are supposed to bond with other men, not women: Most men --- if things are left to nature--- are driven by their natural instincts towards other men. This attraction is strong, permanent, long lasting and naturally facilitates long term, often life-long bonds by itself. Such an instinct starts from a man’s childhood and is the strongest during the early part of the youth.
- Feminine men are supposed to bond with women: The exceptions to the above rules, if things are left to nature --- are transgendered, two spirited males --- who typically (unlike today’s homosexuals) have a strong, permanent and long lasting sexual desire for women which by itself enables a life-long committed, sexual and emotional intimacy between the male and woman. Only these two-spirited males (it is wrong to call them ‘men’ --- but there is nothing negative about it!) are supposed to bond with women and raise children with them. Otherwise children are supposed to be raised in women only clans --- those of related women.
Thus, heterosexuality is queer. Actually, it would be wrong to call such two-spirited males heterosexuals, because if I’m right, Heterosexuality is a highly negative and harmful term, which does not do justice to these two-spirited males with special natural energies.
I will be using the following indirect way to prove the above is true for men all over the world, including those living in the modern west……
1. evidence from the animal world, especially other mammals. Humans are also mammals, and if most mammals are not heterosexual, it makes it highly improbable for men to be heterosexual.
2. Evidence from history of human beings, including that of the west.
3. Evidence from traditional, non-heterosexual present day societies.
4. Evidences from the present day west.
5. Pressures on men to alter their sexual behaviour --- in traditional societies, as well as the modern heterosexual west: These pressures by themselves are a strong indirect proof that men if left on their own will not be heterosexual. Furthermore, applying scientific logic will mean that the intensity of the pressures prevalent in the society is a direct indicator of the level of non-heterosexuality present amongst the men living in that society.
Like I said this is a long drawn process, and I’ll be taking things one by one. Till now I have only proved that there is no heterosexuality amongst animals.
As for this board, there are two things I will concentrate on:
1. First is that “heterosexuality is queer”. I will be proving this through the following:
a. Evidences from nature (including birds!)
b. Evidences from ancient mythology.
c. Evidences from traditonal masculine values and mores.
d. Evidences from modern heterosexual societies.
e. A discussion on the much propagated connection between masculinity/ manhood and heterosexuality.
2. Second is the point of current debate that the basic sexual needs of men --- especially in terms of the gender they naturally prefer to bond with, is the same in the modern west and traditional east. I’ll be proving that through the following:
a. Evidences that men have similar nature of pressures that control their sexual behaviour.
b. Evidences that men have similar outer sexual behaviour in the east and west --- only a difference of degrees.
c. Evidences of subdued sexual need amongst ‘straight’ men in the west.
Let’s denote these as follows:
Basic/ natural needs of men = x,
Pressures of social masculinity that act on men = y,
Men’s outer sexual behaviour = z
So, in any society, x X y = z
Now if y is the same in the east and the west.
And, z is the same in the east and the west.
The only scientific conclusion would be that x is also the same in the east and the west.
Last edited:
- Status