Heterosexuality is unnatural

[Avatar]

Here's some facts about Russia, the largest country by landmass in the world.

Russia's population has fallen from 149 million a decade ago to just over 144 million today. Male life expectancy now stands at 59 years, with the average Russian woman living 72 years.

Demographic experts say that the country is losing one million of its population annually, and the nosedive is accelerating.

"Whole regions of Siberia and the Russian far east are already depopulated, and new deserts are appearing even in former 'black earth' regions of central Russia," says Lev Gudkov, a demographer with the independent Russian Center for Public Opinion Research. "We will not be able to maintain our industry, agriculture or our armed forces."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0418/p06s02-woeu.html

There are growing fears that Russia is facing a population crisis that could see the country lose up to 50 million people in the next 50 years.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, birthrates and male life expectancy have suffered sharp declines. The effects are particularly visible in rural areas, where populations have been dying off or moving to towns and cities.

Russian village in Kostroma
The Russian heartland is being reclaimed by the woods
It is having a dramatic effect on Russia's traditional rural villages. Many villages are shrinking in size, and thousands have been abandoned altogether.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3984951.stm

So plenty of empty space in Russia.

------
Besides if the Permian extinction didn't kill all life on Earth, I doubt humanity will.
Actually there's been many extinctions and life has always flourished after them.

 

[devils_reject]

What level of I.Q do you have? The rules of the individual is never necessarily same as the entelechy. In an office for instance the boss may like a particular guy and grant him some freedom, but imagine what will happen if that same freedom was granted to everybody in that office. Same for nature, if everybody was gay and given that we are not capable of "asexual" reproduction of any kind there will be no humans left much less the ideas like feminism and masculinity. So how can there be no proof of heterosexuality? All else aside from this fact is one mans opinion and ideas. Thats all I am saying, and I will make it a concious effort to read your posts later.

 

[Buddha1]

Just accept that there are all kinds of people in the world and stop patronising them by second guessing their real motives and desires. Each will live according to their conscience, no more, no less.

I think after reading Giambatista's posts you have no right to say that. If you want to close your eyes to what is happening then it is your problem. You are not helping anyone but the oppressive heterosexual ideology which forces people to lie about their basic feelings, needs and desires.

I have personally seen thousands of people lying about these, hiding them, giving out a false image of themselves. And of course struggling with their sexual feelings for men. Do you think I'm just making them up? .

All because the society wants them to be heterosexuals. But why? For whose benefit? Do we really need more children? And even if we did, why should people not be allowed to procreate when they will?

 

[devils_reject]

Almost all men (especially straight men) have a sexual need for other men, whether or not they have a sexual need for women

Buddah1

Exactly what I am talking about. How do you want me to read and assimilate with points like this?

In fact the entire oppressive system is meant to manipulate straight male behaviour, and force it to take on a heterosexual identity. Straight men start hating their sexual need for men and some even become hostile to it. They flaunt this hatred and a disdain for the feminine homosexual category by putting down homosexuals (i.e. queers who like men!). Whether they like it or not, straight men direct all their sexual energies towards women who are the only source of their social masculinity in a heterosexual society.

And this is where I politely bow out of this conversation

 

[Buddha1]

Each will live according to their conscience, no more, no less.

Each should. And that is what I'm fighting for! At least that is what we agree on!

But I'm amazed how unreasonable you are. You have not proved any of my contentions wrong. Not shown any of the evidences I have given to be wrong. and they are evidences with profound implications. But you still accuse me of imagining things up!

 

[Buddha1]

What level of I.Q do you have? The rules of the individual is never necessarily same as the entelechy. In an office for instance the boss may like a particular guy and grant him some freedom, but imagine what will happen if that same freedom was granted to everybody in that office. Same for nature,.....

What do you mean grant freedom. Is nature somekind of a boss who controls people against their wishes. Let me guess --- you are a Christian, right? Just what I needed!

What nature wants things from animals/ people it communicates with them through their inner instincts, needs and desires, not by outside injunctions and laws --- or through religious books..

if everybody was gay and given that we are not capable of "asexual" reproduction of any kind there will be no humans left much less the ideas like feminism and masculinity. So how can there be no proof of heterosexuality? All else aside from this fact is one mans opinion and ideas. Thats all I am saying, and I will make it a concious effort to read your posts later.

I think I should question your I.Q?

On what basis do you assume that this world is divided between heterosexuals and homosexuals?

Listen don't give me your opinions of how things work. Do read first and then post!

 

[Buddha1]

Buddah1

Exactly what I am talking about. How do you want me to read and assimilate with points like this?

You don't have to agree with everything I say. As I have already said at differnet times that I will prove everything one by one. This is one of the things I have not yet proven concretely, and I will not expect you or anyone else to believe me. In fact I'm forced to give my opinion (which I would like to hold till I prove myself) when I'm forced into discussions not related with the topic under discussion.

But the fact that you find this difficult to digest does not mean that you can discount the evidences that I do give for the original point of contention --- in this case that "there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature".

And this is where I politely bow out of this conversation

Well, people have done that several times earlier when they fail to prove themselves. I think heterosexual males are just not chivalrous enough to admit defeat when they meet it.

 

[Buddha1]

Here's some facts about Russia, the largest country by landmass in the world.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0418/p06s02-woeu.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3984951.stm

So plenty of empty space in Russia.

------
Besides if the Permian extinction didn't kill all life on Earth, I doubt humanity will.
Actually there's been many extinctions and life has always flourished after them.

I would love to discuss that population is a huge world problem (inspite of difficult terrains like most of Russia and Siberia), but this is such an 'accepted' and obvious fact, and that I have already too much on my hand. So I'll leave others to respond to you. Or come back to you when I'm through with the posts that only I can make.

 

[Avatar]

Buddha1, suppose all what you say is true, etc., so what?
You want to change world society, but it seems that you can't even change the fairly liberal society of sciforums to agree with you.
Doesn't it seem quite futile to you?

p.s. I see no reason to worry even if what you say is true. Men being opressed? Bad luck for them then!

p.p.s. Oh, and I'd never vote for people such as you, I enjoy female company in all areas (work, study, recreation) and don't want any non-mixed gender society.

 

[Avatar]

Of course, your grand mission, check my other reply to you.

 

[Buddha1]

Buddha1, suppose all what you say is true, etc., so what?
You want to change world society, but it seems that you can't even change the fairly liberal society of sciforums to agree with you.
Doesn't it seem quite futile to you?

p.s. I see no reason to worry even if what you say is true. Men being opressed? Bad luck for them then!

p.p.s. Oh, and I'd never vote for people such as you, I enjoy female company in all areas (work, study, recreation) and don't want any non-mixed gender society.

a) The point is to expose the truth and help those who suffer. Whether I can change things or not is immaterial. I'm too small a person to change anything. And truth is not dependant on me to be told. People before me have been talking about it, and there will be people after me who talk about it.

b). I agree that people may choose to stay quiet as long as it is the others who are inconvenienced. But it is inhuman, lacks empathy and not that you would want to advertise. And don't see how you can feel proud about saying, "Oh, I see a problem but since I am not affected, I give two hoots".

c.) A natural society I'm talking about will have place --- and a respectable place for everybody. There will be room --- a respectable room --- for bonding with women, whether it is social or sexual. But it will not be forced on people. Nothing will be forced. People would be able to choose according to how they feel. Groups and social affiliations will be based on natural traits not social whims and fancies. And don't think you or anyone should feel threatened by what I'm trying to get at. Unless someone cares too much about unreasonable and easy power that they will loose in a non-heterosexual society.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Buddha doesn't accep the theory of evolution. Hence he has lots of trouble understanding sexuality.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Each should. And that is what I'm fighting for! At least that is what we agree on!

But I'm amazed how unreasonable you are. You have not proved any of my contentions wrong. Not shown any of the evidences I have given to be wrong. and they are evidences with profound implications. But you still accuse me of imagining things up!

We live on different planets Bhuddah1. That is all. We speak a different language. As long as you are convinced in your own mind, that is good enough for me. I'm the one who isn't getting your point. I understand you feel sorry for people who have had to struggle with their sexual identity. You think 'blokes' make it harder for them. Some of us probably do. Those that do see it as sport. They enjoy making the 'queer' ones feel persecuted. They do it with a clear conscience because they say that those 'queer' folk are perverts unlike they. It's human nature though Bhuddah1 and no matter what you say you are NOT going to change it. Can you turn a lemon tree into an apple tree? Bear in mind however that where you have these gay haters, you also have compassionate people like you. If you view the whole of society as bad you are ignoring the fact that you are in it doing a little bit of good and where there are Bhudda1's there is hope in your world view. But you are not going to get converts from people for whom it is just not an issue they think about. Those people who are generally tolerant and actually do live according to their conciences. To those people your words are like a clanging gong.

Does that make sense?

c20

 

[Buddha1]

Buddha doesn't accep the theory of evolution. Hence he has lots of trouble understanding sexuality.

I never said I don't accept the theory of evolution. I reject Darwin's sexual selection theory. But then scientists are increasingly saying that and there are enough evidences collected now.

And even if people disagree with particular theories, that does not necessarily mean they are wrong. These theories are after all based on 'reasonable speculations' and in matters such as sexuality and reproduction these 'reasonable speculations' are often influenced by personal biases. None of these theories are 100 sure and infallible. Any one who says so is fooling himself and others. It is another matter that you want to use the power that comes from the scientific establishment and are not open to discussing the fallibility of the theories that they propound that suits you fine.

The theory of evolution says a lot of things, and though a lot of it makes sense, a lot does not. If there are clear evidences in nature to reject a theory, there is no need to cling on to them for personal motives. Theories come and go.

The problem is not those theories the problem is your own biases. A number of things that Darwin said have been accepted without batting an eyelid because they suited the heterosexual agenda. While there are many evidences where there were ample proofs of things that go against the heterosexual ideology but they were never accepted (or if accepted never given any importance) by the scientific community.

so that's what we are talking here. Science in fallible. It's not God! We should not believe in it with closed eyes. And we should not allow people to spread lies in the name of science.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Sexual selection explains a lot I'm afraid.

 

[Buddha1]

We live on different planets Bhuddah1. That is all. We speak a different language. As long as you are convinced in your own mind, that is good enough for me. I'm the one who isn't getting your point. I understand you feel sorry for people who have had to struggle with their sexual identity. You think 'blokes' make it harder for them. Some of us probably do. Those that do see it as sport. They enjoy making the 'queer' ones feel persecuted. They do it with a clear conscience because they say that those 'queer' folk are perverts unlike they. It's human nature though Bhuddah1 and no matter what you say you are NOT going to change it. Can you turn a lemon tree into an apple tree? Bear in mind however that where you have these gay haters, you also have compassionate people like you. If you view the whole of society as bad you are ignoring the fact that you are in it doing a little bit of good and where there are Bhudda1's there is hope in your world view. But you are not going to get converts from people for whom it is just not an issue they think about. Those people who are generally tolerant and actually do live according to their conciences. To those people your words are like a clanging gong.

Does that make sense?

c20

The clanging gong part does not make sense. Why should it hurt well meaning people? Is this what is meant by clanging gongs?

I know you are a well meaning guy. But a are flaunting an oppressive identity and thus helping an oppressive system.

You see, it's not about people. It's about the system. My fight is against the oppressive system, and its ways. And I'm not doing it for 'gay' men. I'm doing it for all men (now you don't agree that most men have a sexual need for men, but that's another matter!)

Had it been a matter of 'gay' men, there was no need for change at all. All you needed to do was to strengthen the gay identity and fight for gay rights. I think the west is doing that pretty well. You don't need me for it. Unfortunately, the more prominent the gay identity becomes, the more strengthened do the forces of heterosexuality become. Empowering homosexuality is directly related to an increase in the oppression of men. For homosexuality is also an oppressive ideology, although in a differernt way.

I'm not here to punish the blokes. And actually I wouldn't have cared if what they were doing only mattered to gay men. At least not enough to want to change things. But they affect the entire male race.

I'm not bothered about the blokes, but the system. They just get on my nerves when they think they can just treat me the way they treat gays. So they get it from me. But all this effort are not to change the individuals, but the system. And this takes several lifetimes.

 

[Buddha1]

Sexual selection explains a lot I'm afraid.

I have seen what you theorised in the other thread about homosexuality and I'm afraid they are not supported by evidences in nature.

 

[c20H25N3o]

The clanging gong part does not make sense. Why should it hurt well meaning people? Is it what it means?

I know you are a well meaning guy. But a are flaunting an oppressive identity and thus helping an oppressive system.

You see, it's not about people. It's about the system. My fight is against the oppressive system, and its ways. And I'm not doing it for 'gay' men. I'm doing it for all men (now you don't agree that most men have a sexual need for men, but that's another matter!)

Had it been a matter of 'gay' men, there was no need for change at all. All you needed to do was to strengthen the gay identity and fight for gay rights. I think the west is doing that pretty well. You don't need me for it. Unfortunately, the more prominent the gay identity becomes, the more strengthened do the forces of heterosexuality become. Empowering homosexuality is directly related to an increase in the oppression of men. For homosexuality is also an oppressive ideology, although in a differernt way.

I'm not here to punish the blokes. And actually I wouldn't have cared if what they were doing only mattered to gay men. At least not enough to want to change things. But they affect the entire male race.

I'm not bothered about the blokes, but the system. They just get on my nerves when they think they can just treat me the way they treat gays. So they get it from me. But all this effort are not to change the individuals, but the system. And this takes several lifetimes.

So to summarise ...

You believe the 'system' lends itself to creating a dangerous polarisation of gay men and heterosexual men and the results of that polarisation is bad for all men?

Who designed the system? A system of such compelexity would require collaboration. Who are the collaboraters? Where do you start?

Thanks

c20

 

[Buddha1]

Buddha doesn't accep the theory of evolution. Hence he has lots of trouble understanding sexuality.

Perhaps I don't accept theories. But I am willing to see what is happening and I can empathise with people and their pain. I think that tells you more about the truth than the theories you make sitting at your desks.

The problem with the scientists is that they don't care for what people feel or need. They only care for their theories. And that's how the theories get wrong.
After all sexuality is all about feelings and needs and desires. Therefore its like --- oh you exist, but you don't fit in my theory so you're bull shit. You should not have happened. Let me see, how I can theorise your actually happening. And that's it!

The problem is that they are actually protecting their own power base or their religious convictions or the identity that they have always believed in (irrespective of their own sexual feelings) rather than being honest with their theories.

Only now scientists themselves have shown how these theories are wrong, yet these people still flaunt the outdated theories. What with eminent scientists like Joanna Roughgarden, Pauls V and Bruce Bagemihl who have openly discounted Darwin. So you see, the scientific community is saying it too.

Perhaps I don't accept theories. But you don't accept the reality.

 

[Giambattista]

I think I should address this issue now -- even though briefly. You seem to think that Masculinity is just a lot of sham, and is basically a 'heterosexual' stuff. I think then you have a very lopsided view about it. According to this view if you are against heterosexuality and especially if you are vouching for sexual bonds between men then you are automatically against 'masculinity'.

I put heterosexuality and masculinity in the same corner because men learn both from the same place. What masculinity means to me is frivolous cultural
behaviors a person is supposed to perform according to their genders.

Maybe it means something different to you, but in my eyes, it stands for talking loudly and boasting of your manly exploits, like hunting, beating people up, laughing at weakness and separating yourself from it, talking (sometimes incessantly) about women and sex with them, making sure that you know all about at least one sport (baseball, football, basketball, etc.) and that you're up to date on everything major in the sports world, cars, women again, and talking loudly about it some more. THAT is what masculinity means to me. The more a person is like this, the more masculine I consider them, and the less I tend to like them.

People don't really need these traits. We don't live in the jungle with wild animals that we have to kill with our bare hands. We have guns for that. And women can shoot guns, too. And play sports. And pretty much everything else that men can do. Maybe not always as good, but how many of these things are REALLY important, anyway.
To me, masculinity is just something to prove, and little else. There may be a little substance to it, but it's mostly a dance. I personally don't need it.

And, I don't know what "gay" has to do with it. Plenty of gay men pride themselves on being manly and straight-acting, as they call it. Derailing the gender train is NOT a pre-requisite for being gay.
I just reject what MY definition of masculine is, because it's not worth it. And I see many, if not most men, exhibiting some of these characteristics, some of them half-heartedly, but as with this whole heterosexuality thing, masculinity has other contests which people, because they have penises, feel obligated and pressured to win.
And femininity is little better, although it IS traditionally less violent! But as an example, female attire is the most blatant. No hair on the legs or in the armpits; mascara, eyeshadow, and lipstick in generous amounts; skirts; high-heels. What a load of garbage!!! If women can't look good without all that, then they don't deserve to! HA! Well, I personally find all that repulsive, because it's so damn fake! Is THAT what a real woman looks like?!?! Gross.

I'd like to know how YOU define these gender roles, especially NATURAL masculinity. I'm positive some of these traits are at least partly driven by biology itself. However, like I said above, being gay doesn't make one feminine, and being a girl isn't going to stop you from taking part in "masculine" activities, so I see these borders as being more political than physical.
I guess all I can say is that we have a different understanding of what gender roles are. It partly comes from my personality. I reject a lot of society's ways the way it is. I'm a very different person than most people I meet, so sometimes a bunch of people will do something, and I'm thinking "Geez! Why are these people doing that? Are they really that stupid?"

Maybe I don't belong in this world?