Heterosexuality is unnatural

[Buddha1]

when they claim that only 2 – 10% of the population is what they call ‘gay’ (sic). The kind of hostility displayed by westerners to the issue of so-called ‘homosexuality’ is mind boggling and can’t be explained scientifically. I mean how can they possibly feel threatened by such a small population.

You don't shoot a teeny weeny mosquito with a gun.

And here we are, talking about a heavy artillery, cannons, a huge infantry, air strikes, navy and a detailed and complex strategy.

And upon that the heterosexual society has rebuilt the whole house and brought in the nuclear bomb.

How can you still assume that their enemy is a teeny weeny mosquito. Certainly they are up against something well worth reckoning. And it's really, really strong --- both in terms of numbers and physical strength.

 

[Buddha1]

.....and i know gay guys who are bigger than me look meaner than me and can fight nearly aswell as i can.

By the way, in my opinion, meanness as a sign of masculinity is the heterosexual brand of negative masculinity. It comes when men kill their natural needs and aspirations and steel themselves and loose empathy for others. Real, natural masculinity is strong, brave and courageous, but at the same time courteous, respectful and fair.

 

[c'est moi]

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

This is false. Even by smelling clothes, you will be attracted towards the odor of a female and even within that group to the individual which has a complementary immune system to yours. Animal and male odors (even of yourself) will repulse you. Experiment yourself.

Personally speaking, I can say that my girlfriends odor attracts me enormously (ps, she doesn't use parfume) ... and that of my brother repulses me greatly (even though girls say he smells so good). And it's logic. And it's not imposed on me by society.

 

[Buddha1]

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

This is false. Even by smelling clothes, you will be attracted towards the odor of a female and even within that group to the individual which has a complementary immune system to yours. Animal and male odors (even of yourself) will repulse you. Experiment yourself.

Personally speaking, I can say that my girlfriends odor attracts me enormously (ps, she doesn't use parfume) ... and that of my brother repulses me greatly (even though girls say he smells so good). And it's logic. And it's not imposed on me by society.

That's cho chweet.....but I hope you realise that its utterly naive as an argument and does not make any sense.

 

[Buddha1]

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

This is false. Even by smelling clothes, you will be attracted towards the odor of a female and even within that group to the individual which has a complementary immune system to yours. Animal and male odors (even of yourself) will repulse you. Experiment yourself.

Personally speaking, I can say that my girlfriends odor attracts me enormously (ps, she doesn't use parfume) ... and that of my brother repulses me greatly (even though girls say he smells so good). And it's logic. And it's not imposed on me by society.

How do you know its your male hormones working not your female ones. Males too have female hormones, y'know and some guys have them in excess. Moreover, its quite possible that relationships with women trigger the female hormones in men --- in order to make them compatible. Men are known to become much softer when they are in relationships with women..

That's not to say that men are not attracted to women. But if you are hinting that men are not attracted to men then you are way off.

What I'm claiming is this attraction for women is not enough to make men compatible with women. And in an non-manipulated environment, this attraction will be short-lived and periodic --- often occuring only a few times in one's life.

 

[Buddha1]

Heterosexuality is an artificial human ideology (like communism, capitalism or Islam) which operates by breaking the natural barriers between man and woman to make possible the kind of emotional, physical, social and sexual intimacy that is only possible between two men or two women.

Blocking the social opportunities of men and their power to form emotional, physical, sexual and sometimes even social bonds with men is an important part of heterosexual ideology to facilitate male-female bonding.

Male-female sex, as per nature, is designed only to facilitate procreation not bonding or intense/ long term pleasure. Under natural conditions the only kind of sex possible between man and woman is vaginal intercourse. Heterosexual ideology wants to make male-female sex equivalent to male-male sexual bonds by removing the burden of procreation, removing all kinds of natural and social barriers between the sexes (including making men feminine and women masculine) and artifically creating room for long term pleasure. It wants to achieve this by hook or crook. Like all ideologies (including communism, capitalism and Islam) it is only interested in making its ideology work --- whether by hook or crook and frequently uses irrational force and manipulation to achieve its goals. In this sense it is not unlike imperialism.

 

[Buddha1]

In your earlier threads you made some good points and raised some good questions, but, this thread is just as narrow-minded as the religious right claiming that homosexuality is abomination to God.

Despite the fact that it is satire, I suspect some of the people that you may have influenced with your earlier threads are going to take issues with this thread, in effect, wiping out any good you may have done for your cause.

budda, what makes it right for you to oppose heterosexuality, and yet it be wrong for others to oppose homosexuality

Perhaps you don't understand. Heterosexuality is forced exclusive male-female bonds on people – even though it cleverly disguises itself as a 'sexual choice'. Therefore, it is oppressive and should be condemned by all and sundry. It's true that science has forced many people into relating with the heterosexual identity --- but that shouldn't make it out of bounds for condemnation.

The relationship between male-female sex and heterosexuality is the same as that of between being an Aryan and Nazism.

if science were to support Nazism, had it been in power, and many Aryans started relating with it --- whether out of ignorance, or lack of choice or because of the power it brought, would that stop you from condemning Nazism?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

A reasonable(all be him kind of fruity) man in your situation would just accept that he is bisexual.
You don't seem to understand that most straight guys instinctively gag over the prospect of mansex. It's not brainwashed media fed nothing, it's just that male bodies and the thought of sexing it up with them is as appealing as eating a bowl of feces - to truely heterosexual males.

Not to you? Then you are a bisexual.
That is the logical conclusion you would realistically reach if you were a reasonable person. But no. It seems you just can't accept, or comprehend, that you are not the norm. And you react angrily to the faceless global indications that you are not, which are ultimately not debatable.
This is some annoying trait you happen to posess independent of your flaming homo tendencies.
Great collection of attributes you've got going there.
Anything else you want to reveal? A cleft lip? gingavitus perhaps?

 

[Buddha1]

A reasonable(all be him kind of fruity) man in your situation would just accept that he is bisexual.
You don't seem to understand that most straight guys instinctively gag over the prospect of mansex. It's not brainwashed media fed nothing, it's just that male bodies and the thought of sexing it up with them is as appealing as eating a bowl of feces - to truely heterosexual males.

Not to you? Then you are a bisexual.
That is the logical conclusion you would realistically reach if you were a reasonable person. But no. It seems you just can't accept, or comprehend, that you are not the norm. And you react angrily to the faceless global indications that you are not, which are ultimately not debatable.
This is some annoying trait you happen to posess independent of your flaming homo tendencies.
Great collection of attributes you've got going there.
Anything else you want to reveal? A cleft lip? gingavitus perhaps?

I have no time for such crap.

If it were a qestion of my own sexual needs, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. I'm not getting sex here, and I'm not making partners. I live thousands of miles from you guys. And if I indeed were bisexual/ homosexual as you say, then I would easily have gone to a 'gay' discussion forum rather than bang my head against a wall here. Surely, they would understand me and my 'crap' as per your theory, and the now-accepted heterosexual ideology.

I'm discussing here not from my own individual 'personal' experiences or feelings. And unlike you, I am not speaking from behind stereotypes and masks of fake power (really be a man and face things!). I wouldn't waste my time here if I did not know what I'm talking about. It's not my society here, and you guys can do whatever you like, as far as I'm concerned. I'm here because I have worked for long years and found out about how the heterosexual society and the identity is a farce. I have seen what it does to real straight men. It would be a shame if I couldn't share what I know! The west has been forcing things down our throats forcibly for long. Now its time for reverse globalisation. And I'm not even forcing things I'm inviting you guys to debate. Which you are too scared to do because you know as well as I do that I'm speaking the truth.

So stop this 'blaming' tactic and getting down to personal things. If you are so sure that I'm mistaken, then prove me wrong through a logical discussion. Like I'm trying to do (if I can retrieve myself for innumerous interruptions -- surely meant to stop me!)

That's indeed a pathetic technique that you have adopted to interrupt this discussion. But it's so typical of similar tactics adopted to enforce the heterosexual ideolgoy in the real world. The moment you see someone try to talk about the truth about being straight or disrupt the 'heterosexuality' of the straight space, you start calling 'gay', 'gay' (that's a very fem thing, by the way!). It's part of the pressure mechanism that the heterosexual society has developed to enforce heterosexuality. It's not going to work with me! I have more substance than you are assuming! And I've seen more of this world than you can ever imagine!

And don't you tell me about what being straight is! Prove it through a logical discussion. There are enough proofs from accepted scientific evidences as well as from other quite well known facts to prove things one way or the other. Stop making excuses and get down to the real thing. (Although I know that after making the initial brouhaha, you'll run off like the rest!)

Show us you are a man, and save your straight status! Because I'm here to expose it!

 

[Buddha1]

You don't seem to understand that most straight guys instinctively gag over the prospect of mansex. It's not brainwashed media fed nothing, it's just that male bodies and the thought of sexing it up with them is as appealing as eating a bowl of feces - to truely heterosexual males.

Well I believed it too, till I saw the world. I had set out to find the truth, and today I am sharing what I've found.

And yes there are men like you've mentioned. But they are extremely, extremely rare. And they are all feminine. I cannot say with surity that I have really found a masculine man who is in practise averse to male eroticism in my years of work(I think it's just part of being a man to like one another, and it's possible to prove it too!) . What I've found is that men say a lot of nasty things about male-male sex --- and that is part of power assertion. The heterosexual society rewards you for it. But I have also noticed that its only lesser men who do it, and they are often feminine than the rest --- in a negative way.

Like I said, inspite of the fact that many people use it as a power statement, I know that some people are genuinely not interested in men. But they are hardly the stuff masculine men are made of. They are feminine but in a very positive way (not the kind of acts that gay men put up!). You would not find such people with an iota of what the west calls 'homophobia' (sic). In fact nothing could come as a better news to them than that men can go fuck each other and leave the women to them --- you know reduces the competition.

The rest of the ones who make a lot of brou haha are wimps trying to assert their easy earned power. A power that is hollow and superficial. It doesn't make them real men, but they don't care. They really have it good, thanks to heterosexuality. That's why they feel threatened when someone tries to attack their very source of power.

 

[Buddha1]

You don't seem to understand that most straight guys instinctively gag over the prospect of mansex.

By the way, when you say straight, you mean heterosexual, which is the manipulated, propagated version of your society. It's masculinity, and majority status is as fake as heterosexuality itself (otherwise your society didn't need to control and manipulate information so much!).

But when I say straight --- I mean it in its real, natural sense, and which is masculine, regular guy.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

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.

Species dependent.

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.

species dependent

3. Most males mate only a couple of times in their lives. That too only in the latter part.

species dependent

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.

species dependent. There are many reasons for fighting. You seem to focus on fighting in mating season. Usually that is done to size each other up in order to prevent unnecessary (continued) fighting, injuries and the sort. To build a hierarchy. Females do the same on some species. A mating season is not always required to build up such a hierarchy. It is necessary however when strangers meet. Or when the positions aren't clear and obvious from exterior characteristics, when for instance 2 individuals are close in size.

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.

species dependent. This is btw not true for the human species.

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.

well, species dependent.

Your anecdotes aren't really arguments. Just anecdotes. A mosaic collection of anecdotes that do not even prove your point.

another anecdote:

succesful homosexuality is very rare in nature.

 

[Buddha1]

Sometime ago I had seen a programme on the Travel channel --- about unsual homes. There was this plush residence created by an architect deep within the forest into a large cave, up a mountain. It was beautiful. And the interiors were so plush, you'd think it was a five star hotel. What could be wrong with this. It seemed like a perfect merger of nature and science. Until they showed us their shining bathroom. The bathroom was built inside a natural, small waterfall inside the cave. The huge rock that formed the wall of the bathroom kept getting wet from the seeping water and green algae kept mushrooming there. The owners would daily clean the rock with large amounts of chemicals. Because, they were working against natural forces and nature has a way of asserting itself. And guess where did all the chemicals go? into the water reservoir below. The architect and his family did not deserve to live in nature.

And that is the difference between humans before the advent of science (and heterosexuality!). Earlier the humans used their brain to work with nature --- even when they invented things and used nature for their advantage. Science works against nature --- and this is the biggest drawback of science. All scientific processes work against nature. Humans are part of nature. They can't forever go on working against it. One day when they realise things, it will be too late.

It is the same with artificial human ideologies, whether it is communism, Nazism, heterosexuality, capitalism or Islam --- whether they use economy, race, so-called sexual preference or God as their motivation. They basically try to build artifical environments to suit their convenience (they don't work for the benefit of humankind, whatever they may claim!) and for this they have to work against natural forces. They have built enormous infrastructures and 'cleansers' to fight these natural forces. And these create a lot of wastes --- and do long term harm to nature. And they have to continually guard against the natural forces, because nature has a tendency to assert itself, no matter how hard you try.

That is why heterosexuality depends on an enormous social infrastructure that is ever alert and permanently controls and guards against the natural forces (represented by the natural gender and sexual needs of people!) --- which will keep asserting themselves --- especially during every adolescence, as the cycle repeats itself --- and every adolescent will have to go through the trauma of adjusting his sexual needs --- sometimes mutilating them beyond recognition, in order to fit into the heterosexual infrastructure, in order to survive. (And they will grow up to sustain and uphold the same heterosexual infrastructure by denying that they ever had to go through trauma!). The whole process creates a lot of harmful waste --- in the form of 'sexual minorities', 'gender minorities', and immense pain that those who choose to stay in the 'heterosexual' identity have to go through. And of course the whole thing harms nature in the long run --- like any artificial 'scientific' process. It results in over population, evironmentally hazardous or anti-life measures to control population, and may harm the human genes permanently through long term modification of their natural behaviour, if the powerful heterosexual system doesn't use science one day to alter the human gene (it is already trying that with sheep!).

ETC.

 

[Buddha1]

Species dependent.

True.....I was talking about mammals here. But I see no evidence (anecdotes if you please) of other behaviour than this in creatures other than birds. And I'm already making a concession for them --- though they are another interesting case -- to be discussed later.

species dependent. This is btw not true for the human species.

Let's leave humans aside for the time being. We know that humans live in a highly manipulated society and their sexual behaviour does not necessarily reflect their true natural drives. You may say that I have not proved my point yet, but I have given enough evidences already --- that no one has challenged yet.

Your anecdotes aren't really arguments. Just anecdotes. A mosaic collection of anecdotes that do not even prove your point.

I don't know what you mean. What do you want me to do to prove myself.

My contention is that real heterosexuality (well heterosexuality according to me is non-existent, as far as nature is concerned even amongst humans, so we are actually talking about a sexual and emotional need for bonding with women) is queer. I can't prove it with things like 'gene' etc. because there have been no such thing proven yet. What I'm doing is gathering evidences from all around that strongly point to the possibility (scienfically speaking, in real terms it means that it is abudantly proven) of heterosexuality being queer.

succesful homosexuality is very rare in nature.

I don't know what successful homosexuality means. According to me, homosexuality is non existent in nature (apart from in birds, maybe!)

 

[spuriousmonkey]

what's your scientific definition of queer?

 

[Buddha1]

succesful homosexuality is very rare in nature.

I'm really curious, what is 'successful homosexuality'?

what's your scientific definition of queer?

It's not a scientific term. By queer I mean 'feminine'.

I know the heterosexual society defines it as meaning "homosexual", but then everything about the heterosexual society is manipulation of facts. Of course it equates male-male sexual desire with 'homosexuality' which it equates with "femininity" and thus with being "queer".

 

[Buddha1]

Evidences for the queerness of heterosexuality

These are evidences that has survived the heterosexualisation (involving suppression, destruction, manipulation and misinterpretation) of truth.

EVIDENCES FROM THE NATURE

MAMMALS

Animals, especially mammals but excluding birds, live in male only and female only packs. That's the natural way to live. There is no emotional, sexual or social bonding between the male and the female, and there's hardly any social interaction for most part. Certainly its not in the instincts of animals to bond with the opposite.

But there are a rare variety of males who break this rule, and instead of living in the male pack they choose to live in the female pack as females, and help raise kids. Apparently they think of themselves as 'females'. They develop close bonds, including emotional and sexual bonds with females. They are the equivalent of real heterosexuals found amongst human beings.

Here are some of the evidences:

1. According to Johann Roughgarden in her book, the only male sheep that bond with females are the ones that live in the female pack as 'females'. As per her analysis here transgenderism and heterosexuality are synonymous in nature.

2. According to a programme on the discovery channel, amongst sea lions, where most males that wish to mate fight it out amongst themselves, there is a much gentler kind of male --- who is rare and definitely a different gender than the majority of males --- who prefers to bond with the female long term, and thus avoids the rough and tough life of the male world. This male-female pair lives away from the male or female pack in quietitude and raise its kids.

3. Amongst the red fox, the male who prefers to bond with the female is the gentler, softer kind who doesn't fight to mate with females (like other males who don't bond) and doesn't even fight to protect his kits. Instead he uses cunningness (a quality typical of the heterosexual ideology, and that's how they've managed to enslave real men for all these centuries!)

BIRDS

Many Birds seem to have a heterosexual world. Same-sex bonds in their societies seem to be naturally occurring in the margins --- something characteristic of homosexuality in an artificial heterosexual human world.

Although there is no proof of so-called 'homophobia' in birds which is typical of human artificial 'heterosexuality'.

But you should know that amongst the birds the males carry the XX chromosomes, while the females carry the XY chromosomes. So we have feminine males and masculine females (a characteristic typical of heterosexual human society!) from the start.

Also in some species of the birds --- the females do the things that males are supposed to do and vice versa. Strangely, in these species, the females are stronger and bigger than the males. And they are the aggressive, dominant ones, while the males are meek and submissive. The females fight amongst themselves to choose a male mate, while males look after the young. Strange, but typical of a world dominated by heterosexuals. (heterosexuality tends to do the same with the humans, only it doesn't come naturally to them.)

 

[Buddha1]

EVIDENCE FROM MYTHOLOGY

According to the most ancient version of the western mythology available, the Greek mythology, heterosexuals are likened with hermaphrodites.


According to this myth, the king of gods --- Zeus, once became angry with the gods and cut them into halves. He later relented and sent them to earth as humans, where it became the basic drive of each person (who represented one half of the god!) to look for his or her other half through 'love'.

Thus men sought to unite with another man, women with another woman and the few hermaphrodite gods (the half male and half female ones) sought male-female relationships.

Ancient myths have a strong connection with nature. Ancient people reflected human nature in their mythology. Unlike the modern society which believes in cold, practical 'facts' but widely distort them.

It's such a pity when the heterosexual society denies the openly transgendered heterosexual male the 'heterosexual' status, when they are the real, natural heterosexuals (barring the so-called homophobia of course, which they don't exhibit!)

 

[duendy]

have been kind to you up to now TILL i saw your theories analyzing me int othe thread--from which i await you answer

having said that i dont mean i completely agreed wid you before. i just thought out of respect i'd let you get on wit it. but maaaaan, tis shit is takin you over, so much so you imagine you know all about me precisely because of yourunproven theories

never thought i'd agree with Dr Lou Natic, but the last post of hi where he told you te actual....how some men do NOT want to go with men is spot on..........Buddha1 STOP trying to tell people what tey are 'really like' ad what they 'really want'. who are you to do that?.........

it is the same as some homophobic person telling someone who solely likes men that they are really 'gong thru a phase' or 'dont know what they really want' have 'made a choice' will 'grow out of it'......'should have a lobotomy, ECT, etc'......like who te fuk is someone else to tell another wat their sexuality it?....i am not against chllenging homophobia, ad misogyny etc of course when it stifles individual freedom, but leave people alone with teir own sense of teir sexual being. stop trying to hammer them over the head with how YOU think things should be

 

[bighairysack]

You are bunch of homos where im from we kill homos we hang up a rope for them haha die die 666 die

Moderator note: This poster has been permanently banned from sciforums.