Heterosexuality is unnatural

[Buddha1]

Empirical evidence from a traditonal society closer to nature, that HETEROSEXUALITY IS QUEER

The last guy was different. He tried to put me down --- you know they are in every group --- the sissies who cry 'gay', 'gay', whenever someone tries to raise such issues or violate the 'heteroseuxality' of the air. I dealt with him in a typical macho style and he never dared to meddle with me again. He did not have enough powers (that hang in the heterosexual air!) that such males in heterosexual societies enjoy.

What is significant is that he was the softest guy in the pack, bordering on effeminate --- even when he was hairy and kept a moustache.

It was amusing to see the other guys talking shit about him behind his back --- calling him a 'eunuch' in the local language --- which is an abuse thousand times worse than 'fag' --- reason, he spent most of his time in the girls group (although he had a reason --- he was terribly in love with one of the girls!)

And still I was never different from the rest of the guys. It was the one who spent his time with the girls that was different.

 

[Buddha1]

It is an important question and before you resolve this 'fix' you don't have a moral right to preach men to stop having sex with men. Why not be completely honest with your ideals? Why be selective? If you attack all forms of casual sex, you'd have a more sound case against 'homosexuality'. But for that you'll have to discard the heterosexual identity.

Otherwise you'd be seen as a biased person pushing your own personal (so-called) 'homophobic' agenda misusing religion.

Now if 90% of the society is indulging in casual, non-marital and non-procreative sex with the opposite sex (whether by pressure or by interest) and less than 2% is indulging in casual sex with the same sex, I think it's only fair, if you want to have a moral right to do it, to first work against the majority of the problem, before spending your enormous energies on just 2%.

At least 90% of your efforts should be to stop casual sex between men and women, as well as to shatter the heterosexual identity (the homosexual identity will itself go!).

 

[Buddha1]

Making a man and a woman was not for pleasure. Did he not ask Adam not to eat the apple? And in any case God did expect the humans afterwards to have sex only for procreation and within marriage! Am I wrong?

I am sure that your God, if faced to choose between two 'evils' of:

a). casual, non-procreative and non-marital sex between a man and a woman, where the man has no intention of taking care of the child if it happens, and woman has no intention to rear it either, and where she is more likely to kill the foetus if she conceives, and,

b) in a world where humans have populated God's dear earth much more than earth can sustain, and it is already showing the signs of breaking apart, if two men, who are deeply in love with each other, and are faithful and mongamous to each other all through their life, stick by each other side, are good people who help others, look after the environment and generally try to lead a good life,

God is likely to choose the 2nd 'evil'. What do you think?

Perhaps when God wrote bible, or when Paul interpreted God things were different. If God was to do it all over again, he may actually make heterosexuality a terrible, terrible sin, punishable by nothing less than death --- after he sees what humans have done to mother earth.

 

[Buddha1]

could you list very short points labeled a,b,c,d etc

a) blah blah blah is blah because blah
b) blah is blah my point is blah

etc i just wanna know exactly where you stand, no outer crust just cut straight to the center of your point please.peace

I think I misunderstood your point earlier.

If you notice, I remember to do it in the manner you have suggested at the beginning of putting down my contentions. I only go into details as the discussion follows. So if you want to know the briefs you could always look at the beginning of a particular discussion.

peace

 

[Buddha1]

could you list very short points labeled a,b,c,d etc

a) blah blah blah is blah because blah
b) blah is blah my point is blah

etc i just wanna know exactly where you stand, no outer crust just cut straight to the center of your point please.

I get your point. I will try to be specific when responding to you!

 

[Buddha1]

Mixed gender societies are unnatural

The first and formost thing tounderstand is that men and women as per their nature are not suposed to live together or share social spaces. A heteroseexual scietymixes them together in the extreme, completley breaking them from their own. This is the root cause of many of modern human societies ills, including heterosexuality.

If you leave a theartifica pressures, over a perid f time men and wmen wil naturay start eading searate lives and with that wi go all the artifically inculcated male-female bonds including dating, relationships, romance and even marriage.

 

[Buddha1]

We have seen how heterosexuality is 'unnatural' in the wildlife. For a neutral person it would be a strong indicator that it is unnatural amongst humans too --- for human beings too are basically animals. At least the burden of proving that heterosexuality is natural amongst humans should now fall on those who flaunt the heterosexual label (and throw it's social weight upon others!). At least that is what a true scientific spirit would demand.

But since they have the entire social machinary (including religion and science) unfairly on their side, with its their power, they have decided to sit back and continue to throw the assertion that 'heterosexuality is natural'.

So this thread is to prove that heterosexuality is indeed unnatural for the humans.

 

[c20H25N3o]

So this thread is to prove that heterosexuality is indeed unnatural for the humans.

You are the one making the assertion so it is up to you to prove it. Heterosexuals feel no need to give you proof since they assume their stance is natural anyway because any other way feels unnatural to them.
It is down to you to 'open the eyes' of the heterosexuals and prove to them that they are just conditioned by society when in actual fact their real natural instincts are somewhat different to what they have been conditioned to believe as natural.

peace

c20

 

[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?

James, sorry missed your post.

You have raised a very pertinent point. I wondered why noone asked.

My experience and study show the classification of people on the basis of 'sexual orientation' as invalid and misleading. Sexual orientation is an invalid concept. I still need to prove it, but my contention is that 'heterosexual', 'homosexual', 'bisexual' etc., etc. are unreal social identities that only a few people really fit into, while it is forced onto the majority.

In order to expose the motives behind this social manipulation, expose the mechanisms of how it is enforced, expose the stereotypes that are tied with each identity --- giving enormous power to one and extremely disempowering the others --- I am using these western terms but in a new way --- in the way that things are seen in traditional societies --- but at the same time also seeing them vis-a-vis nature.

That leads to some confusion I agree (and sometimes I use more than one definition of a term confusing myself and hoping that people will be able to guess from the context), but I guess if it does lead to confusion, people will be motivated to examine these identities --- the source of a widescale human oppression..

Now for how I'm generally using these terms: It is good to remember that people who coin these terms mean --- and how they are defined in dictionaries is --- one thing, but how they are actually used and practised is what the real meaning of these terms is. In section A I'm elaborating on how these words are really seen:

Section A:

Sexual orientation: It's an ideology which seeks to divide people on the basis of whether they care to 'reproduce' or not! It is based on the assumption that:
- the outer sex of people that humans are attracted to is the most important aspect of their sexual need.
- Men are attracted to either one sex or the other, apart from a few who are bisexuals.
- All men who are attracted to one particular sex, regardless of the gender (inner sex) of the subject or of the 'object of desire', belong to one biological and social group, share common traits and are essentially different from men in the 'other' sexual orientation category.
- Sexual orienation has a biological basis.

Heterosexuality:
Heterosexuality refers to an ideology whereby men are forced to limit their sexual needs exclusively to women. Male-female sexual desire on its own does not constitute heterosexuality. It is based on the assumption that:
- Most men have sexual need for women strong and long lasting enough to enable long term emotional bonds.
- Most men are repulsed by male eroticism and have no need for sexual or emotional intimacy with another man.
- the above two qualities (sexual need for women, disinterest in men) comprise the essence of (natural) masculinity.

Note: This is the identity hugely propped up by the society. It invests in it enormous social powers that leads to the exploitation of those who dare to exclude themselves.

Homosexuality
Homosexuality is a part of the heterosexual ideology and is used as a dust bin for men who are excluded from heterosexuality. It is based on the assumption that:
- Only a small percentage of males have a sexual need for other men or can respond sexually to other males.
- These men are 'deviants', 'different', 'minority', 'queer' and so on. Meaning they are very small in numbers.
- These men are essentially feminine. As a sexual desire for males is basically feminine.
- It happens when something goes wrong. It is not normal, and so it must have a 'cause'.

Straight:
Although the spirit of this word denotes 'masculine', regular man, in the west it is seen to be synonymous with 'heterosexual'.

Queer
Although the spirit of the word is 'weird', it is unfairly used to denote 'femininity' in males assuming it to be 'wierd' and it is further equated with a sexual desire for men. Thus Queer = homosexual = gay.

Section B;

Here I'm giving the definition of these terms which you get when they are applied in traditional and/ or nature's sense.

True Heterosexuals:
I denote it to refer to males who are incapable of forming emotional or sexual bonds with men, or choose to suppress this need; and who use either a fake or real capability to bond with women as a power tool to feel superior, garner social power and oppress others. They have very little natural masculinity but they have become extremely dependant on the power that social masculinity brings. In nature they would be deemed as lesser men. In today's western world they refer to the negative population of meterosexual men.

Sometimes, I also use the word 'true heterosexuals' to denote the actual males (as per my theory) who have a natural capacity to bond long term with women, and for whom it is not an issue of power but their real sexual needs. They are a minority in nature, and have a lot of positive feminine energy. They don't care much for social masculinity. Some of them come out as transgendered and transexual males -- and are thrown out of the heterosexual community to preserve its masculine image. Others are accepted in the heterosexual community as 'meterosexuals' -- although here they are the positive population of the meterosexuals.

True Homosexuals
True homosexuals refer to that part of the feminine male population --- including transgendered, transexuals and meterosexuals who have a same sex attraction for other males (whether feminine male or masculine male or both) whether or not they have a sexual need for women.

Although, I believe the feminine male group is biologically one, and in natura --- socially one, but I still use the term homosexual to divide this population as it is demanded for putting the things in the right perspective.

True Straights
I'm using the word in its natural sense, and how it would be seen in a traditional society --- that is a traditional society's idea of a masculinie, regular guy which is more or less similar to how it occurs in nature.

This includes men who have a masculine gender (inner sex). They have very little femininity to boast of. They need social power/ masculinity to assert their natural gender and the society manipulates the definition of social masculinity and thus effectively controls their behaviour forcing them to adopt the heterosexual identity. In nature they are not heterosexual, though many of them have a sexual need for women in various degrees. Very few men, because of their masculinity can bond with women. Almost all straight men in nature have a sexual need fo bond emotionally with men.

In the heterosexual society several meterosexual men (both negative and positive) as well as other transgendered men use the 'straight' identity because of their heterosexuality. But they are not really straight. I use the term 'real straights' to distinguish this population from the natural straights.

Meterosexual Men: By meterosexual men I mean men who have both masculinity and femininity in almost equal amounts. They have both masculine and feminine energies. But some of them because of their addiction to easy power that heterosexuality brings have mutilated their femininity and have failed to develop their natural masculinity. Thus today they have lost both their masculine as well as feminine powers, and are just lesser men.

Please note that in the above definitions I have changed the western definitions claiming to represent 'sexual orientation' into ones that represent the "Gender oreintation" of people Because sexual orienation is an unreal concept, only gender orientation is real and biological.

 

[Giambattista]

After reading what you've presented, studies which have examined the phenomenon, and based on my own experience, I must say that number of men that are attracted to their own kind must be much larger than previously assumed (by people who know no better).
Many studies have been done. A few have reported that gay people make up from 1 to 5 percent of society. A study done in 1995 by Gonsiorek, Sell, and Weinrich reported around 10 percent of people reporting that they were predominantly attracted to their own sex, with around 20 percent total saying that they felt some significant same-sex attraction.
If what Buddha1 has presented is ultimately true, then I must conclude that these studies which have reported 10% as a figure for homosexuality are probably pretty accurate. Even more, the number may be higher than that.
I know from experience that people may say one thing, but what they feel is another.

 

[Giambattista]

I almost don't really care about such in-depth labeling. I tend to think in terms of potential and gullibility. Potential being equal to how attracted to their own sex a man (or a woman) is, and gullibility being how swayed they are by their gender roles and society's allowance.

 

[Buddha1]

If what Buddha1 has presented is ultimately true, then I must conclude that these studies which have reported 10% as a figure for homosexuality are probably pretty accurate. Even more, the number may be higher than that.
I know from experience that people may say one thing, but what they feel is another.

Are you kidding?

If what I'm saying is correct (this is easier to experience than to prove, but this is what my challenge is) then the percentage of men who like men is between 90 and 95%.

 

[c20H25N3o]

the percentage of men who like men is between 90 and 95%

Aww comon. This just is not true. I dont even need a survey to tell me that. I can just look around me to see that this is not true. That may be the case if the group surveyed were members of a gay club but generally speaking you are waaaaay off the mark.
The funny thing is that gays would lose their 'gay identity' if this were true and for many it is the lifestyle that appeals and that lifestyle is wrapped up in 'gay identity'.

Tackle homophobia by all means bhuddah1 but don't talk rubbish about 95% of men 'like' men. It just is not true.

peace

c20

 

[Giambattista]

Are you kidding?

If what I'm saying is correct (this is easier to experience than to prove, but this is what my challenge is) then the percentage of men who like men is between 90 and 95%.

Well, my dear Buddha1, I guess I haven't seen much evidence of this. Like I said, the number may be higher. Maybe I should say, MUCH higher. Look, I know there are plenty of guys who would never call themselves gay, but if you were able to look inside their minds and see their true selves, then probably a TON of them would be labelled bisexual.

But I don't and can't really care for bisexuals. If they have a shred of attraction to the opposite sex (and even if they don't), they're never going to admit to liking their own kind, and it's never going to do me any good! So I can bitch about their stupidity, but it's not going to help me at all. I'm still going to be alone with my convictions.

In my experience, if I, Giambattista (not my real name!), would proclaim this to people who felt comfortable around me, I would probably get a lot of lip-service. People would pay respects with their mouths, but not their hearts.

 

[Giambattista]

In my experience, if I, Giambattista (not my real name!), would proclaim this to people who felt comfortable around me, I would probably get a lot of lip-service. People would pay respects with their mouths, but not their hearts.

If that even means anything. I don't have much faith in this world.

 

[Giambattista]

Dear Buddha,

You now have THREE messages today!

 

[Buddha1]

But I don't and can't really care for bisexuals. If they have a shred of attraction to the opposite sex (and even if they don't), they're never going to admit to liking their own kind, and it's never going to do me any good! So I can bitch about their stupidity, but it's not going to help me at all. I'm still going to be alone with my convictions.

That's the irony of being a man in a heterosexual world. You have to be alone in your convictions, your pain and your struggles. Whether you identify with gay, bisexual or heterosexual. But the fact is that we all share the same convictions in different degrees.

Yes I understand your loneliness and struggles, but it should not stop you from seeing the reality for what it is.

And those who you label bisexuals are not stupid. They have learned to survive under a hostile heterosexual environment. Won't you say they are leading a better life than you are.

And yes the degree and extent of pressures that the society uses to suppress male-male sexual need -- both the explicit and implicit ones are so vast that it would be stupid to assume that they would do that just for 5% to 10% of the population.

 

[Buddha1]

Aww comon. This just is not true. I dont even need a survey to tell me that. I can just look around me to see that this is not true. That may be the case if the group surveyed were members of a gay club but generally speaking you are waaaaay off the mark.
The funny thing is that gays would lose their 'gay identity' if this were true and for many it is the lifestyle that appeals and that lifestyle is wrapped up in 'gay identity'.
Tackle homophobia by all means bhuddah1 but don't talk rubbish about 95% of men 'like' men. It just is not true.
peace
c20

I will not argue about that with you now. I will give evidences to you when the time comes. There are other things to prove now.

But every word of what I've said is true and I'm here after verifying it again and again. I wouldn't be wasting my time taking on the powerful 'heterosexual' system just on the basis of 10% of the population. The Gay community is more than enough to look after this small population.

I am not talking about gay people at all. I am talking out of my experiences of working with straight men (there are no heterosexual men in my country, straight means masculine, regular guys!). I have also worked with 'homosexual' men and they are a totally different lot.

With Giambatista (what a difficult name you've chosen!) it was different, I must prove to him this important fact now. He must know the real truth now, because I want to help him discover himself through my work experiences.

 

[Buddha1]

The funny thing is that gays would lose their 'gay identity' if this were true and for many it is the lifestyle that appeals and that lifestyle is wrapped up in 'gay identity'.

Finally, you're getting the gest of what I have been saying all along. The 'gay' identity is baseless --- a farce, much like the heterosexual identity. The term 'gay' has any relevance vis-a-vis nature only if it refers to feminine gendered males who have a sexual attraction for males.

Sexual need for men is such an overwhelmingly universal part of being a man that the whole idea of sexual orientation is stupid.

 

[Buddha1]

The term 'gay' has any relevance vis-a-vis nature only if it refers to feminine gendered males who have a sexual attraction for men

But then, to be fair, you should make a distinction between feminine gendered males who are attracted to other femininie gendered males, and feminine gendered males who are attracted to masculine gendered males. Not to mention those who are attracted to both.

Not to mention feminine gendered males who are attracted to masculine gendered females. And feminine gendered males who are attracted to feminine gendered females. Not to mention those who are attracted to both. And those who are also attracted to feminine gendered males or masculine gendereed males or both.

And then you have masculine gendered males attracted to masculine gendered males. And...........

Well I guess by now you would have known how baseless the whole idea of 'sexual orientation' is!