Heterosexuality is unnatural

[Buddha1]

Wow.
I never thought I'd come to see such ineptitude on this board. No evidence for heterosexuality in nature?
1: As opposed to finding this evidence where else? lol
2: The fact that biological organisms exist is evidence for heterosexual behaviour.

Eeeek.... they let people this stupid use computers?

Another over-confident foolhardy.

I suggest you go through the thread before you argue. You seem to have just dropped by, and decided to give your views.

I'll answer your questions nevertheless. It's my pleasure anytime to shatter the myths that form the base of social power of heterosexuals.

1: As opposed to finding this evidence where else? lol?

As opposed to the (unnatural) western heterosexual society.

2: The fact that biological organisms exist is evidence for heterosexual behaviour.

2. Biological organisms are not dependant upon male-female sex for reproduction. A lot of reproduction happens without male-female mating. Male-female just happens to be the method of reproduction for many species.
However, male-female sex for reproduction is not equal to heterosexuality.

To take an example, a man with absolutely no sexual interest in women may also have sex with one, in order to procreate. The need to procreate is different from a sexual desire. Most men who have a small interest in women will also likewise have sex mostly when they want to reproduce.

Eeeek.... they let people this stupid use computers?

I'd like to see your intelligence in dismantling my assertions. But for that you'd have to read them carefully first. Unless you'd want to chicken out like many others that came before you!

 

[Buddha1]

Actually, my derisive comment wasn't meant to be part of my argument. Still, now that you point it out, I know it might touch upon ad hominem, but one does have to consider the source of a supposed position.

You're wrong again. The source of a supposed position is immaterial. What counts is the content. Even a 'mad' person may say things that those in complete senses may overlook or more likely, hide.

And merely that an assertion totally contradicts 'accepted' positions is no justification for dismissing it. You may do it in an authoritative setting, when you're in power. But not in an open forum like this. You'll be immediately exposed.

The motives of a person saying something may be important to consider when examining his contentions (although the contents of the assertions should first be examined on their own first!).

Eeeek.... they let people this stupid use computers?

Dum, dum dum dum, dumb!

What are you, 13 years old?......... grow up and go out into the world

The motives behind your outbursts is apparent. You are angry at the traditional power base of yours being attacked (which is the fact). You guys derive your power from propagating these myths. No one before has challenged this position and hence your tantrums are understandable. This is pure frustration coming out.

Lo! This globalisation in reverse. From the third world to the west. Paying you back in your own currency.

 

[Tom2]

Read my post carefully. The example of fish was in a different context.

I did read it carefully. You used the fish thing as a lead-in to your question about mammals.

It was meant to show that male-female procreation in nature does take place without any sexual desire or activity --- proof that opposite sex desire is not required at all for procreation or to carry on one's genes.

So what? That has nothing to do with your claim. That's like me claiming that god doesn't exist in nature, and then pointing at things that are not god.

The part about mammals was a different contention. That male-female sex for reproduction is not the same as heterosexuality.

*shrug* It's up to you to make yourself understood.

Though I focus more on mammal behaviour, because that would be closer to human behaviour, studying other animals can also tell us a great deal about sex, gender and procreation. We can also draw a parallel with mammals unless there is a clear contracdiction.

Again: So what? This has nothing to do with your claim. If you look for heterosexuality where it isn't, then you will surely not find it.

If you as much as use your eyes, I've already done that in a previous post.

Yeah, I missed it. Sorry 'bout that.

In a man's world (straight man in the western case) what appears is often not the reality.

LOL, you are too much. I've already told you more than once that I am heterosexual. Case closed! You have a data point that contradicts your conjecture.

But what would you know about straight men. You're heterosexual not straight.

Mind explaining the difference?

In the western world, right where you're located.

That is part of the natural world, Spanky. Again, case closed.

Especially, the U.S.
No other human society knows of heterosexuality.

What are you smoking? Heterosexuality was around long before western civilization, and it will be around long afterwards. Deal with it.

 

[Buddha1]

So what? That has nothing to do with your claim. That's like me claiming that god doesn't exist in nature, and then pointing at things that are not god.

Well, you may not think so, but the heterosexual society (including science) claims that this world revolves because of heterosexuality. And without it there would be no life on earth. You can refer to posts on this thread only.

And that sexual desire between men is unworthy becasue it can't achieve procreation.

 

[john smith]

God this thread is boring...who cares if there are fucked up animals out there?-not me

 

[Buddha1]

What you don't seem to grasp here is that if heterosexuality is rooted in human brains, then it is natural by default, because by golly human brains are part of nature. There simply are no such thing as "unnatural occurences in

nature". That is a simple fact that is true by definition.

It's true that unnatural occurrences don't happen in nature. But human society is full of unnatural occurrences.

Anything that is against the natural order of things, anything that destroys or seeks to control/ alter the nature inside us or outside of us is unnatural.

The problem is, with the human brain humans can manipulate, control and alter nature. However, such processes have huge costs in terms of environmental disasters or human/ animal sufferings.

Organised religion, is high on the list of unnatural human endeavours.

But reproduction without sexual contact (the behavior you cited in fish) is not found in mammals at all.

I'm not denying that. But you're ignoring my point that male-female sex is not heterosexuality. Opposite sex animals mate to reproduce --- not for fun, certainly not for bonding or casual sex. These instincts are reserved mostly for the same-sex.

That is what my original contention is. There is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature --- which you also seem to agree with.

I think our main point of disagreement is that you're saying that it is natural for humans, if not for animals. Then we should concentrate our argument on this aspect.

But reproduction without sexual contact (the behavior you cited in fish) is not found in mammals at all.

It does point to the possibility, also supported by other evidences, that the instinct that drives animal males to mate is more of a drive to procreate than a sexual drive -- only the act of reproduction involves a process similar to the sexual activity.

Who cares if I am?

Sure you don't. But truth still ought to come out.

The nature of science is such that a single counterexample proves a conjecture wrong. I am a counterexample that proves yours wrong.

Really, then Darwinism should have been thrown out the window ages ago.

If that (heterosexuality is a rare minority/ anamoly etc.) is the case then it is still natural, and you are still wrong.

But if this is the case, why does the society (including the institution of science) propagate otherwise. Why have such a large population of men suffered for thousands of years, in order to unjustly empower a few.

your claim is that heterosexuality is not natural. What does that have to do with social norms?

Social norms force one to act and think in 'unnatural' patterns by creating artificial conditions not found in nature. In this case they create an 'unnatural' state where men loose their ability to bond sexually with other men, while training (like you do with dogs) and forcing them to channelise all their sexual/ emotional needs towards women.

How could actual heterosexuality be construed as anything other than natural heterosexuality?

a.) In a society where there is such an intense pressure to be 'heterosexual', how do you find out who is 'actual' and who is just 'pretending' to survive.

b.) Actual sexual desire between men (not homosexuality which is a totally different concept) has for ages been persecuted as 'unnatural', the persecution is still strong, and this desire now formally makes you a lesser male (homosexual), while it is considered an anomaly at best by science. Who is responsible for all this?

LOL. That's pretty funny.

That's the most serious part of my assertion. I can validate this, if you wish.

 

[Buddha1]

Of course I can turn a woman down without feeling like less of a man.

If you can, then you must not be a straight man. At least not a typical straight man (By straight I don't mean the western definition of 'heterosexual', but the spirit of the word that is a masculine man). If you can't feel what they go through how can you be one of them? That is the single most pressure that every straight man has to bear.

Queers, meterosexuals and other feminine males are less affected by the pressure because the 'manhood' status does not mean much to them. In fact they do not fit in the 'masculine' identity.

I can narrate the following incident:
In a poster exhibition on masculinity held by my organisation, at an international conference in South Africa, a female colleague of mine was approached by a western 'heterosexual' man. He was commenting on a poster that said, "men face a lot of pressure to exaggerate their sexual feelings for women".

The man, very proudly stated that in U.S. men have no such pressure. My colleague asked him just one question: Can you say no to a woman who approaches you for sex?

The man thought about it, said "no!" and went his way convinced.

1. grow up and go out into the world to see how it really works...

Thanks for the advice. That's what I have been doing for the past 10 years, and am still very open to see and learn more. My assertions about male gender and sexuality are based on 10 years of groundwork on these issues with straight men, in a non-western country. This work includes interaction with westerners, homosexuals and other transgendered males. It also included a lot of research.

Otherwise only a fool will attempt to take on a powerful heterosexual society in this manner. Had my assertions been half-baked, I would have been laughed out of discussion boards long ago.

take some science courses.

I do want to understand science more. And look forward to being presented with newer scientific facts.

However, I don't treat science like religion. Science is a human institution and is as such not infallible. One should not take anything that is presented in the name of science with closed eyes. Especially if you are aware of biased agendas that are keen to abuse science.

 

[Buddha1]

How could actual heterosexuality be construed as anything other than natural heterosexuality?

You don't need to take on a 'heterosexual' label to have sex with or even bond with women. Just do whatever, your inner instinct tell you to do. Why should men be divided on the lines of sexual orienation? Why do you need a different identity from another man just because your likings are different?

Your recent posts suggest that you are one of those rare truly 'heterosexual' men who are not dependant on unfair social power to gain access to easy 'manhood'. If you are so sure of yourself, why don't you disown the oppressive social system even if it gives you extraordinary but unearned powers? You should be prepared to live on your own natural strengths, which you seem to be capable of.

As a beneficiary of this social system of oppression, you have to take responsibility for it.

 

[Buddha1]

God this thread is boring...who cares if there are fucked up animals out there?-not me

Well, the discovery and national geographic channels do for one thing....

Boring, funny, outrageous.......think of several ways to avoid to have to deal with the issue. Only Tom2 has shown the guts to actually deal with the points that I have raised.

 

[SG-N]

There's no evidence of heterosexuality in nature... so heterosexuality (exclusively) is a human disorder. It's your point, isn't it?

That's a way to see it... You said birds were different so lets talk about the others. What if there's no more food? I would say that 99,9% of the animals would eat their babies or eat the last ressources instead of dying. So, when 99,9% of the humans would die before doing that... is it a disorder too? No : it's a different behaviour.
Your watching nature and you think that it's the way that should follow the humans. Wake up! We are the most evolved species in the world. Not the strongest, not the fastest and maybe not the most intelligent, but the one that is able "to rule them all". We are able to chose what's good and what's bad. We are able to see that fucking a guy is pointless while doing it with a girl can increase love between us and help to find a wife and have babies. That's evolution... our instinct has evolved.

About disorder : what about love then? what about living with the same girl for the rest of your life? It must be a disorder too, no?

 

[Tom2]

Well, you may not think so, but the heterosexual society (including science) claims that this world revolves because of heterosexuality. And without it there would be no life on earth. You can refer to posts on this thread only.

And that sexual desire between men is unworthy becasue it can't achieve procreation.

Good grief, you seem to be completely incapable of paying attention long enough to focus on a single point!

Look, your claim is that there is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature. I am presenting myself as evidence. Rather than deal with it, you make comments (some very long-winded) on all these issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with your claim. This quote from you here is just the last in a series of them.

Are you interested in being scientific, or in pushing an agenda?

 

[Tom2]

Only Tom2 has shown the guts to actually deal with the points that I have raised.

Yeah. Unfortunately you haven't returned the favor with the points I have raised.

 

[jayleew]

Here is a challenge for anyone who takes pride in a heterosexual identity:

There is NO evidence of heterosexuality in the animal world (except for birds and maybe a couple more -- and in very rare cases in mammals).

Heterosexuality is unnatural.

LOL!

That is rediculous, where do you live? Haven't you ever watched NOVA? HAHAHA!

Consider each species of life and you will see their nature among the males to battle each other for dominance over the females in the pack/herd. Case closed! LOL!

 

[jayleew]

Heterosexual activity is not the same as heterosexuality or heterosexual identity.

Male fish frantically pursues the female (according to discovery channel it is lovelorn (heterosexual propaganda)). The female drops several eggs, the male fertilises the eggs. But he never even once touches her. As soon as this process is over they both lose interest in each other, and go their own way, never to meet again.

IS THIS HETEROSEXUALITY. This is not even heterosexual activity.

HAHAHA! How old are you? Did you make this thread just to have something to argue about?

Male fish meets female fish, male chases female fish, male busts a nut. I'd call that sexual activity. More speficially heterosexual activity.

Where in the mammal world do you see anything equivalent of dating?

You don't because dating is not necessary to breed. We are not animals, so we do silly things like dating.

Where in the mammal world do you see nuclear families where mother and father raise their kids together?

Foxes for one.

Where in the mammal world do you see mixed gender societies?

The closest thing is a pack/herd. But the alpha male wants all the females to himself.

 

[jayleew]

Widespread prevalence of sexual bonds between males (I insist not homosexuality) has been proved beyond doubt amongst wild animals.

Now, the ball is in the court of self-defined heterosexuals. It is their moral duty to prove that heterosexuality indeed does exist in nature.....when all the evidence emphatically points otherwise.

And if they cannot validate it through nature, then the practise of 'dating' (that is neither found in the nature nor in non-western societies) should be banned. Male-female relationships should be limited only to procreation. Casual male-female relationships or love affairs should be made entirely illegal. And all intrusions in the male-only societies by planting females into them, in order to establish a heterosexual order, should be removed. So that we can live in the way that nature has meant us to.

I have provided enough evidence for now.

So, just because we are not like animals and see value in relationships, we have to be like animals and just mate for procreation? Are you insane?
Read "Brave New World" by Ray Bradbury. He might change your mind to a society such as you are describing.

The way nature has meant us to live? No animal on Earth has the intelligence of humans. Should an intelligent being live like the beasts? Shoot, what do we need clothes for? Might as well get rid of everything that shows intelligence because you want us to live as nature intended.

Your ideas are just plain stupid. This forum is a waste of my time. I will read it once more to counter your rebuttal of the evidence I provided to you, which I'm positive you are going to make. Somone with your ideas couldn't possibly succumb to reason.

 

[jayleew]

Exactly. And if heterosexuality is not natural, it must harm men.

I'm trying to go further, to find out the exact process of this pressure. The exact ways in which it harms men (not homosexuals, but straight men). And most of all, the reason for the society to apply such a pressure on men.

Have you ever heard of Pheremones? Have you ever heard of chemical reaction in the brain in response to stimulation? There's your pressure. If you don't believe nature planned it that way, look at the scent glands of deer.

 

[MetaKron]

Why are some people ashamed to be homosexual? A lot of it comes from fear of punishment, if not by humans, then by phantoms who have fancy names. It doesn't occur to someone to be ashamed of bodily functions until someone starts beating him up for having accidents, which all children will at an early age.

If heterosexuality were natural there would be no perceived need for force to make people stay heterosexual.

I also have this weird idea that the attractions that make homosexuality possible make heterosexuality possible. It even makes a certain amount of genetic sense to be attracted to women who are like men because a man carries his mother's genes as well as his fathers.

 

[MetaKron]

What an idea! A man doing it with a man is pointless, while a man doing it with a woman cements a relationship. There are a few heterosexual couples I have to tell that to, that the sex cements the relationship. Maybe they will stop hurting each other all the time.

This here is a false dichotomy. There is no good reason to suppose that two men can't have just as close a relationship as a man and a woman can. They might be able to be even closer because they are two men and are not so alien to each other. At least they wont' be chewing each other out for leaving the toilet seat up, although someone might get in trouble for not raising it. The dichotomy is false both ways. Men can achieve close relationships and have sex with each other, and heterosexual couples can dramatically fail to achieve this. That failure of very common, too.

 

[jayleew]

Why are some people ashamed to be homosexual? A lot of it comes from fear of punishment, if not by humans, then by phantoms who have fancy names. It doesn't occur to someone to be ashamed of bodily functions until someone starts beating him up for having accidents, which all children will at an early age.

If heterosexuality were natural there would be no perceived need for force to make people stay heterosexual.

If pilfering was natural there would be no perceived need for force to make people stay non-pilferous.

Heterosexuality is natural in nature. Stealing food is natural in nature. Would you like to live in a society such as the one you describe?

 

[MetaKron]

If you want to say that heterosexuality is natural in nature, then to be honest you must admit that homosexuality is natural in nature.

I already live in a society where pilfering is the natural state of things and people are punished for the natural practice of homosexuality. What is it that you think will get worse?