Roman said:
i dont know what eastern philosophy has done this to him, but is sure as hell aint the philosophies ive been studying in my 17 years of gong fu (kung fu) training. he must have some funky scriptures.
peace.
Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
i dont know what eastern philosophy has done this to him, but is sure as hell aint the philosophies ive been studying in my 17 years of gong fu (kung fu) training. he must have some funky scriptures.
peace.
ok what exactly do you want me to answer, and i will do it right now with no confusion i will be blunt,
peace.
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi said:
EmptyForceOfChi said:
I don't want any answers.
I have put forward certain assertions, and I'm discussing it giving my logic, and expect people to give meaningful inputs --- whether supporting my assertions or opposing them.
I just don't expect people to casually drop in with a couple of derogatory remarks, when they can't prove me wrong.
So, if I may summarise your assertions Bhuddah1 ...
1) Macho (masculine men) blokes enjoy shooting pool with their mates down the local bar. There is loads of bonding in this kind of environment between males. Back slapping, thigh slapping hearty japes.
2) Family men (feminine men) enjoy reading their kids stories and being with their missus on a cold winters night when the ankle biters are asleep (finally phew).
3) And then there is those queer folk. Those gard darned hetero (heterosexual men) folk. Those blokes who look for a quick shag with some easy lay, no commitment, purely physical. Spreading those wild oats. Unemotional in their sexual conquests (see Roman
).
I would say this is pretty common knowledge. Don't ya think?
peace
c20
1) Macho (masculine men) blokes enjoy shooting pool with their mates down the local bar. There is loads of bonding in this kind of environment between males. Back slapping, thigh slapping hearty japes.
2) Family men (feminine men) enjoy reading their kids stories and being with their missus on a cold winters night when the ankle biters are asleep (finally phew).
3) And then there is those queer folk. Those gard darned hetero (heterosexual men) folk. Those blokes who look for a quick shag with some easy lay, no commitment, purely physical. Spreading those wild oats. Unemotional in their sexual conquests (see Roman
).I would say this is pretty common knowledge. Don't ya think?
peace
c20
Last edited:
Only 3 types of men... Ha ha. I think there are about 3 billion types of men. Each one unique individual.
I love my mates, I love my women, I love my girl and I love my family. I gladly hug, kiss, help, and support all of my loved ones. I have never been forced to love any of them it comes naturally.
Denigrating a stereotype is the home of the disenfranchised, the uneducated, spiteful and dumb. Classifying humanity in a black and white method, even with your extra discrete grey steps, shows a lack of understanding.
Do not focus your own experiences on the mass of humanity. At best it extends only as far as your peers, and then only in your perception.
No human is queer (if queer is meant as a denigration of a concept). We are all natural, perfect, and pure despite the venom of others.
If anything is queer it is your argument. It is week, spiteful, and most of all displays a vicious contempt of your fellow man.
Only the fool will judge others.
I love my mates, I love my women, I love my girl and I love my family. I gladly hug, kiss, help, and support all of my loved ones. I have never been forced to love any of them it comes naturally.
Denigrating a stereotype is the home of the disenfranchised, the uneducated, spiteful and dumb. Classifying humanity in a black and white method, even with your extra discrete grey steps, shows a lack of understanding.
Do not focus your own experiences on the mass of humanity. At best it extends only as far as your peers, and then only in your perception.
No human is queer (if queer is meant as a denigration of a concept). We are all natural, perfect, and pure despite the venom of others.
If anything is queer it is your argument. It is week, spiteful, and most of all displays a vicious contempt of your fellow man.
Only the fool will judge others.
EmptyForceOfChi said:
If you insist, why don't you prove one or more of the following -- please be as frank as you can:
- Sex with women makes a man masculine.
- Sex with women is a mark of a man's manhood/ masculinity.
- A long term relationship with a woman makes a man masculine.
- A long term relationship with a woman is a mark of a man's manhood/ masculinity.
- Sexual desire for women makes a man masculine.
- Sexual desire for women is a mark of a man's manhood/ masculinity.
The challenge is open to anyone, besides Empty force. If you fail, allow me to prove the opposite.
Thank you!
Last edited:
Insecure about your masculinity by any chance buddha?
I think being masculine is not having to think about what makes you masculine, and just feeling it when you dick a broad. But you wouldn't know anything about that.
You know that feeling you get when you straddle a cock with your anus, yeah it's like the complete opposite of that. So opposite it's not at all similar.
I think being masculine is not having to think about what makes you masculine, and just feeling it when you dick a broad. But you wouldn't know anything about that.
You know that feeling you get when you straddle a cock with your anus, yeah it's like the complete opposite of that. So opposite it's not at all similar.
Bhuddah1 said:
fail what?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=masculine
mas·cu·line ( P ) Pronunciation Key (msky-ln)
adj.
Of or relating to men or boys; male.
Suggestive or characteristic of a man; mannish. See Synonyms at male.
Grammar. Relating or belonging to the gender of words or forms that refer chiefly to males or to things grammatically classified as male.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=male
male ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ml)
adj.
Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.
Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex; masculine.
Consisting of members of this sex.
Virile; manly.
Botany.
Relating to or designating organs, such as anthers or antheridia, that produce gametes capable of fertilizing those produced by female organs.
Bearing stamens but not pistils; staminate: male flowers.
Designating an object, such as an electric plug, configured for insertion into a recessed part or socket.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virile
vir·ile ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vîrl, -l)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an adult male.
Having or showing masculine spirit, strength, vigor, or power. See Synonyms at male.
Capable of performing sexually as a male; potent.
n.
A member of the sex that begets young by fertilizing ova.
A man or boy.
Botany. A plant having only staminate flowers.
c20
Not at all. Just fortunate to learn about how the heterosexual society manipulates masculinity and through that men's sexual behaviour. Heterosexuality has helped itself to a masculine, superior status for too long, without deserving it. I think its time to bring it down from its high pedestal. Only a real man can do it!Dr Lou Natic said:
Dr Lou Natic said:
I'll say you don't know much about masculinity then. But then how do you expect wimps to know anything about masculinity.
Dr Lou Natic said:
Oh, you've tried that too! Well, haven't tried that as yet, but I can certainly do that without feeling insecure about my masculinity like you do -- . Inspite of the heavy propaganda by the heterosexual society to paint receptive anal sex as feminine. But then everything about the heterosexual society is a farce.
Dr Lou Natic said:
O.K. Mr. masculine who has seen it all. If what you have experienced is real, be a real man (which I'm sure you're not!) and prove that heterosexuality is masculine. Don't make excuses. If it is real, surely there will be ways to prove it. Unless, you don't have the confidence.
I have the confidence to prove that heterosexuality makes you a wimp, a lesser male. I can easily prove that the sense of masculinity that one feels when fucking a woman is because of the heavy propaganda by the heterosexual society linking manhood with something as simple as cumming into a vagina. The entire heterosexual machinery (including the peer pressure!) is geared to make one feel that if one has had sex with a woman it is a BIG achievement.
But the fact is that the act of sex is just a simple, natural act. There is nothing masculine about it. It is not a surprise that people who can best 'satisfy' a woman are transgendered/ transexual males and other women --- and yes, of course wimps.
We have already discussed (with you and your friend on another thread......) that according to studies more than 90% of transgendered males are heterosexuals. So there!
Don't skirt the issue and don't run away. Let's see who is a man and who is queer. It's a challenge!
by masculine do you mean "tough" "hard" "good fighter" ? if so then no sexual preference has nothing to do with fighting skills im a long term martial artist and i know gay guys who are bigger than me look meaner than me and can fight nearly aswell as i can. but if you were saying does a mans sexual preference have anything to do with him bieng a man then yeah it does, hormones occir in the body for this very reason and makes the male have a competative ature because he wants to lay down dominance to impress the females, look at nature,
EmptyForceOfChi said:
If you have grown up somewhere outside modern west you know that the ‘sexual preference’ or ‘orientation’ thing is a farce. Being Gay is more of a gender thing.
The big and mean fighters you are talking about are not really gay --- they have just taken on the identity because:
(a) the western society gives no space to men to bond emotionally or sexually with another man in the mainstream --- not even in the guise of friendships, and
(b) they are ignorant …… they don’t know that the heterosexual, mixed gender environment that they grow up in ----- which kills or failing which isolates male sexual need for other men ------ is an artificial, unnatural one. They are being duped into a ‘gay’ identity when their place is in the mainstream. It’s how their society has constructed male gender and sexuality and they have no choice in the matter.
That’s your social conditioning speaking. We have already discussed in the thread titled “there is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature” about the male sexual behaviour in the wild. We’ll be taking up the issue again in this thread – as we are discussing the relationship between masculinity and heterosexuality.EmptyForceOfChi said:
Science has no way to establish the ‘why’s’ of nature. That’s pure guesswork. It can only tell the ‘what’ and the ‘how’.
Hormones are known to increase/ result in a person’s desire to have sex. But there is no evidence that they determine the so-called ‘sexual preference’ or that male hormones directly result in a sexual desire for females, leave alone an exclusive desire for women. In fact all evidences suggest that an excess of hormones makes a person look for sex irrespective of the gender of the person.
In fact it is the excessive male hormones that make fighters out of men, and if so-called ‘gay’ men are mean fighters, it certainly shows that hormones don’t matter in the so-called ‘sexual preference’.
The fact is that the males in the wild who fight with opponents over females are not in the least what we understand by the term heterosexuality.
There are many points to be considered here:
1. Not all virile or powerful/ alpha males fight to mate. Have you noticed in innumerous T.V. programmes how only one pair fights while the rest merrily chew on the grass or carry on their chores.
2. Males who do fight for females only do it when it’s time for reproduction, otherwise they ignore the female even if she approaches them.
3. Most males mate only a couple of times in their lives. That too only in the latter part.
4. The reason for fights is not really to impress the females (females --- whether in the wild or amongst humans are hardly impressed by such tactics…..they are more likely to freak out!). Rather, it is (a) the need for competition amongst males and (b) the fact that whenever something is scarce it calls for competition and a physical fight is the only way the male in the wild knows to deal with the competitor --- whether male or female.
5. That the masculine males who fight for the chance to pass on their genes for reproduction don’t care for the female once their job is done. There is no romantic involvement, no emotional bond or intimacy, no social interaction after that. They are not even likely to meet each other again.
6. It is interesting to note that the males who do bond (like in some cases of red fox which is an exceptional case) with the females for short periods to bring up children are not the ‘fighters’. E.g. the tactic they adopt to save their children from aggressors is to run in the opposite direction to distract the aggressor’s attention from the kids. Such males prefer to avoid physical enounters. The rare Female that bonds with males to bring up children is also not likely to choose an aggressive, dominant male. Often such males end up rearing children of other aggressive males who fight for a chance to mate.
Last edited:
alain said:
Well, I guess I have to explain it again and again --- as I am dealing with a western audience.
The world, for your kind information, is not divided between homosexuals and heterosexuals (or bisexuals or asexuals for that matter!).
I am against heterosexuality because it is a human made ideology and I have seen how men suffer under it. I have worked with men for 10 years. Because I argue against heterosexuality does not mean that I argue for homosexuality. I am equally opposed to homosexuality --- and you should see some of the heated arguments that I have with homosexuals --- including on discussion boards. But here, I am focussing on exposing heterosexuality.
By the way heterosexuality is not the same as male-female sexual desire/ act, nor is homosexuality the same as male-male sexual desire/ act.
Huwy said:
hahahahahaha!
I did not know that you need to be a heterosexual to reproduce.
The most populous regions in the world will probably think you are abusing them if you use the word in their presence --- especially if you explain what it means!
We have already shown how heterosexuality and reproduction are unrelated. If anything the major concern of a heterosexual society is how to defeat the reproduction process to allow long term male-female bonds.
If anything, heterosexuality is anti-reproduction.
As if marriages are natural --- or something that men really want to do!Huwy said:
Last edited:
Once again, I have suggested nothing of the sort. Stop reading what is not there.EmptyForceOfChi said:
Male-female sex is built for reproduction and nothing more --- as is amply proven in nature.EmptyForceOfChi said:
And if what we do is indeed the natural way of life, how come other beings don’t do the same. And why do we need so many pressures to keep men heterosexual?
Truth can be stranger than fiction. Especially if you have been out of touch with reality, and live in an artificial, scientifically created world.EmptyForceOfChi said:
By the way, for all you guys up there, do visit the following thread for an update on animal sexuality.......it's called "there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature".
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46957&page=1
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46957&page=1
Last edited:
Buddha1 said:
A simple question if I may; where do you find these "many pressures?" In your culture, perhaps? Though I doubt it.
I see absolutely no evidence of "pressure" in Western cultures. In fact, I see plenty of the exact opposite. Before the military began accepting women in their ranks, the men were NEVER happy to simply be in the company of their fellow men. They took every opportunity to go hunting - actively!! - for women. And they still do. There was no "pressure put on them to do this, they naturally desired it. Totally in opposition to what you claim.
Avatar said:
If you are part of the problem then you should not. There is no compulsion.
On the other hand, just because you are a human, it should be a matter of concern to you. Because heterosexuality harms humanity. It doesn't spare those who submit to and adopt the heterosexual identity.
If you are a man then you should really be concerned, because heterosexuality takes away your freedom and binds you to heterosexual norms and stereotypes, even if it gives you mind boggling powers for the same. But make no mistake --- the powers are illusionary, not real.
Typically I am expecting young naturally straight men to benefit from this information. Young men who have not yet mutilated their masculinity and sexual need for men beyond recognition.
- Status