Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
You are again taking the discussion towards the discrimination faced by homosexuals. Who cares for homosexuals (no offence, I just want to make C20 understand. I think he understands but is being dishonest to protect his misplacedidentity!).c20H25N3o said:
If you study gay men (they are gay because they are feminine), you will arrive at wrong results about male-male sexuality. If I study a group of heterosexual transvestites would you accept the results to apply to whom you think are heterosexuals.
What is the scientific proof that a 'gay' man's desire for men also represents masculine men's sexual ned for men? What is the scientific proof that sexual orientation is a biological phenomenon or that the gay identity is biological? How can any one even move on to study 'gays' before even making sure that such a group exists in nature in the form that it is seen by the heterosexual/ homosexual society? I thought science was about going only by evidences.
That's why I call the science of human emotions a complete farce!
Last edited:
If you wanna look at it that way, then it's the other way round. The sensitive ones were empowered because they took to the idea of bonding with women and rearing of children easily. It is with this social power and using their cunningness that they subdued the more powerful/ aggressive masculine gendered guys.c20H25N3o said:
gay men aren't gay, just BECAUSE they are feminine! how can you prove that statement?
not all gay men are feminine, a lot of gay men are macho. You say you've studied them?
Actually there is recent research that suggests that sexuality is founded in biology - more specifically brain hemisphericity and hormone leves, even pre-natal hormone levels.
Not that you'd ever be willing to acknowledge such research existed, with whatever blatant agenda you've got going here.
This argument has been used against the church who continue to state that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, and a "bad lifestyle choice" which gays can change, and convert back to heterosexuality.
There are even Priests trying to convert homosexual men back to heterosexuality - as you can imagine they've had no genuine success.
I'm sure that would offend you as much as it offended me.
By reading your thread Buddha, you've helped me to accept once and for all that i am in fact...
a heterosexual. I've come to realise that for at least the past 10 of my 23 years i have been attracted to females approximately my own age, in a sexual manner.
I even admit that I have had sexual intercourse with some females, and that I found it highly pleasurable.
If I had my own way, I would have sex with hundreds - no - thousands of women over the rest of my life.
However I have never been sexually attracted to a male. I have never looked at a males naked body and become aroused, I have never wanted to put my penis in another mans anus, or in his mouth. Does that offend you?
I have never pressured a man to be heterosexual, I have a penpal from the middle east who is gay, and I know quite a few people who are gay, including "scott", who i think is a bit of a "wanker", and that has nothing to do with him being gay.
Ever noticed that left handed people keep being born, who are naturally left handed, it has nothing to do with their upbringing? yet like 1 out of 9 or 10 people are left handed, maybe even more? If it was a recessive trait, it would have phased out through the process of evolution, but its not. People keep being born who are naturally left handed.
Imaging studies on hemisphericity have shown remarkable differences between left handed and right handed people.
So the existence of both gays and lefties could be explained through the study of nature!
not all gay men are feminine, a lot of gay men are macho. You say you've studied them?
Actually there is recent research that suggests that sexuality is founded in biology - more specifically brain hemisphericity and hormone leves, even pre-natal hormone levels.
Not that you'd ever be willing to acknowledge such research existed, with whatever blatant agenda you've got going here.
This argument has been used against the church who continue to state that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, and a "bad lifestyle choice" which gays can change, and convert back to heterosexuality.
There are even Priests trying to convert homosexual men back to heterosexuality - as you can imagine they've had no genuine success.
I'm sure that would offend you as much as it offended me.
By reading your thread Buddha, you've helped me to accept once and for all that i am in fact...
a heterosexual. I've come to realise that for at least the past 10 of my 23 years i have been attracted to females approximately my own age, in a sexual manner.
I even admit that I have had sexual intercourse with some females, and that I found it highly pleasurable.
If I had my own way, I would have sex with hundreds - no - thousands of women over the rest of my life.
However I have never been sexually attracted to a male. I have never looked at a males naked body and become aroused, I have never wanted to put my penis in another mans anus, or in his mouth. Does that offend you?
I have never pressured a man to be heterosexual, I have a penpal from the middle east who is gay, and I know quite a few people who are gay, including "scott", who i think is a bit of a "wanker", and that has nothing to do with him being gay.
Ever noticed that left handed people keep being born, who are naturally left handed, it has nothing to do with their upbringing? yet like 1 out of 9 or 10 people are left handed, maybe even more? If it was a recessive trait, it would have phased out through the process of evolution, but its not. People keep being born who are naturally left handed.
Imaging studies on hemisphericity have shown remarkable differences between left handed and right handed people.
So the existence of both gays and lefties could be explained through the study of nature!
c20H25N3o said:
EVen the best medicine in the world if taken in excess becomes poison.
The more a quality is important for a species survival, the more limited quantity it is required in, and the more possibility of it becoming suicidal if present in excess.
(On the conttrary sexual instincts between men is not about survival but the quality of life and the species invests its members with liberal amounts of it!)
Sure procreation is very important for the survival of the species. I am also assuming here that Darwin's contention that survival is the only driving force of living beings is true (which I don't believe!). But this importance is only at the species level not the individual level. The species distributes various survival elements (of which procreation is only one!) and other important elements that make this life worthwhile amongst its various constituent individuals, who then act accordingly. The species while doing so makes sure that any one element (including procreation!) does not become so excessive as to the harm the species itself and disturb the precarious balance of nature.
I agree that an instinct to pass one's genes can be very strong. But it is not an omnipresent need and not something that is present at all times in a man's life. There is a proper time for it, when the many males (but not all males) want to pass on their genes. And then comes the role of sex with women. Unless and until that times come, sexual feelings for women don't happen on their own and have to be artificically triggered in human beings --- hence the intricate social mechanism.c20H25N3o said:
Letting the branch of which you were a part, grow on and on from your seed.
Nice prose. But watch out for your limits, because there are other trees that need to grow too. Nature as the big boss, can't allow only you to grow --- and grow more than you require, and take up the space of other trees.
Survival is one thing. Dominance and exploitation is another.
It is stupid to claim that passing on the gene is the only reason for sexuality to exist.
And how do you know the vast majority likes to do that. In the west now, according to a survey I've read only 20% or men marry, and there too the rate of divorces are extremely high.c20H25N3o said:
And how do you know that for those who are happily married, concepts of sexuality are not an issue. Is that what you've seen in movies. People make compromises in life and try to make the best of it. They are not going to tell you about their problems or cry before you. (I've seen innumerous happily married men struggling with their sexual feelings for men).
Strange because we consider parents and siblings and uncles and aunts and cousins to be blood relatives. I guess a difference of cultural perception.c20H25N3o said:
c20H25N3o said:
That theory does not make much sense except if you can prove sexual orientation to be real for the vast majority. Even then this theory is too far fetched. Funny that you should claim as what your society is made up of where you are from!
Any thing that describes our history that far will only be a theory. But this theory best fits evidences from all sources --- from animal behaviour to to historical evidences to modern human behaviour to the nature of social mechanisms and pressures to other miscellaneous evidences (e.g. common sense and the mess and waste products that human mechanisms have created in this world!).c20H25N3o said:
I mean this theory is what you get when you piece all the evidences together. Then it becomes as easy as joining the numbered dots to present the real picture. There will be some gaps naturally, but for the most part the theory will hold good.
Or do you or someone else have a theory which better explain the evidences.
"""The more a quality is important for a species survival, the more limited quantity it is required in, and the more possibility of it becoming suicidal if present in excess."""
WTF, can you explain this statement, at all? An example?
If you think its bad for humans, the rat race, the sexual competition, do you know what its like for the gorillas? One gorilla fucks all the women, the rest don't get any sex - unless the alpha male dies or gets old or something.
Look it may not be a nice fact of life for everyone, but the gorilla that puts his sperm inside the vagina's of the most she-gorillas, is most likely to pass on his genetic information to little baby gorillas, and so on.
Do you know that when the female lion is on heat, the male lion will have sex with her up to 100 to 150 times in a single day??
"""sexual feelings for women don't happen on their own and have to be artificically triggered in human beings --- hence the intricate social mechanism.""
Artificially triggered? WTF are you talking about. Most men don't even need to know a girls name to want to have sex with her.
"""That theory does not make much sense except if you can prove sexual orientation to be real for the vast majority"
ARe you saying that sexual orientation isn't REAL??
Sounds like you are the one obsessed with the issue of sex.
Do you want us to all come out and go
"hey buddha1, if your gay... thats ok with us! we accept you for who you are."
Cause i'm sure we'd all be willing to do that, if thats what you need to hear. Seriously, I don't see anyone here who has a problem with homosexuals, or has a desire to put down people who aren't actively heterosexual.
And dude, "evidence" is a plural on its own. It doesn't need an S.
WTF, can you explain this statement, at all? An example?
If you think its bad for humans, the rat race, the sexual competition, do you know what its like for the gorillas? One gorilla fucks all the women, the rest don't get any sex - unless the alpha male dies or gets old or something.
Look it may not be a nice fact of life for everyone, but the gorilla that puts his sperm inside the vagina's of the most she-gorillas, is most likely to pass on his genetic information to little baby gorillas, and so on.
Do you know that when the female lion is on heat, the male lion will have sex with her up to 100 to 150 times in a single day??
"""sexual feelings for women don't happen on their own and have to be artificically triggered in human beings --- hence the intricate social mechanism.""
Artificially triggered? WTF are you talking about. Most men don't even need to know a girls name to want to have sex with her.
"""That theory does not make much sense except if you can prove sexual orientation to be real for the vast majority"
ARe you saying that sexual orientation isn't REAL??
Sounds like you are the one obsessed with the issue of sex.
Do you want us to all come out and go
"hey buddha1, if your gay... thats ok with us! we accept you for who you are."
Cause i'm sure we'd all be willing to do that, if thats what you need to hear. Seriously, I don't see anyone here who has a problem with homosexuals, or has a desire to put down people who aren't actively heterosexual.
And dude, "evidence" is a plural on its own. It doesn't need an S.
Last edited:
We are all branches of the same tree! We have the same roots. Cell division gives rise to growth. Same sex relationships cannot give rise to growth of the human tree, that is a fact of life. Their can be no fruit from such a relationship and the purpose of the tree is to bear fruit. This is why most men do not have an instinct to desire other men sexually. It is a pointless exercise biologically speaking.
peace
c20
Buddha1 said:
Im not your 'pal', and i have read your post.i just don't understand it.you dont have to explain, im really with avatar here, i couldnt give a dogs bollocks.
When the morning sun shines, it fills the hearts of human beings with joy and love. So that we can share that love with other men and bring happiness and joy in their life too. And This is why men have an instinct to desire other men sexually. It is a pointless existence otherwise, biologically speaking.c20H25N3o said:
See what I mean!
Last edited:
Hesus Buddha1, what is it with you and this subject?
Youve got another thread,virtually exactly the same calle 'Heterosexuality, unmoral, unethical...', what trype you do write.
Youve got another thread,virtually exactly the same calle 'Heterosexuality, unmoral, unethical...', what trype you do write.
This discussion has been carried forward from the thread 'Pressures on men to be heterosexual' since it belongs in this thread.
Surely, nature does not want each and every fruit that the tree bears in a year --- and there can be millions of them, to end up into other trees. Gosh! That would be sickening for the nature. Nature only wants a few number of seeds to grow into trees every year.
See, it is a purpose of the tree to grow other trees, but he is not supposed to use every fruit for that purpose, likewise humans are supposed to procreate but only a small number have to go into that.
Let's take you apart for this argument. This argument very well goes against heterosexuality.c20H25N3o said:
Surely, nature does not want each and every fruit that the tree bears in a year --- and there can be millions of them, to end up into other trees. Gosh! That would be sickening for the nature. Nature only wants a few number of seeds to grow into trees every year.
See, it is a purpose of the tree to grow other trees, but he is not supposed to use every fruit for that purpose, likewise humans are supposed to procreate but only a small number have to go into that.
Last edited:
C20 and others,c20H25N3o said:
I'd like this thread to be a forum to discuss issues regarding the pressures (and rewards) mechanism that the heterosexual society has developed to enforce its heterosexual ideology.
I'm taking this discussion on whether heterosexuality is natural in humans to the following forum:
Heterosexuality is unnatural in humans too
Do join me there!
Buddha1 said:
Why do you confuse brotherly love with sexual love? Why are the two so intertwined in your mind? I love loads of guys. Man it would break my heart if my best mate died. It did break my heart when another male friend jumped in front of a train. My friends are not either macho or sensitive, they share degrees of both characteristics and we provide support for eachother as men do away from their wives or partners. We talk about men's troubles. We console eachother, share eachothers hopes and aspirations, put a caring arm around eachothers shoulders, encourage eachother, BUT nowhere do we feel that such behaviour naturally leads to a sharing of sexual pleasures between ourselves. Personally I think it is a bit sick to say that brotherly love would naturally lead to sex if there were no systematic 'pressures' on men to be straight.
Havn't you just got sex on the brain? It's how you come across.
peace
c20
Another of your useless comments.Avatar said:
I am talking about your society and mine and the historical ones and the ones amongst animals.......but you don't even care about this subject, so why do you make such a fool of yourself.
My am debating on the basis of my immense work experience --- not out of my personal experience or a personal need/ feelings, (though they are also part the experience). So you cannot say that to me. But I have a right to say that to you. You have no idea what other men go through. You don't care about the subject, you don't care to be a man, you don't have any experiences that would make you wiser on the subject. All you know is from stereotypes and what you see of men from their outside.
How can you make such forceful statements on that basis and rubbishing mine.
Why do I even waste my time trying to answer such posts!
c20H25N3o said:
For god's sake! you don't even understand such a simple thing. I am not confusing anythng. I was trying to show you that what a stupid prose you had made and jumped to biological conclusions from your stupid and irrational poetry.
I made another stupid poetry to clarify that point, but surely it missed you.
Buddha1 said:
Bhuddah1:
I am not trying to be clever or trip you up. I am making an effort to understand even if that is by putting up objections to what I believe you are saying in the hope that throwing you a bone will give you the motivation to explain in a language I can understand. Give me that at least. Perhaps I should just quit giving you airtime in these threads? We obviously do live on different planets and my babel fish must just be knackered when it comes to translating what you are talking about.
peace
c20
Buddha1 said:
Get over yourself. Man there are a hundred other topics to get involved in. I am paying this one attention because I find your claims incredulous based upon my own personal experiences.
You've got a bat and others are throwing you balls. Yeah we are trying to bowl you out because your version of reality does not match up with ours. If you cannot take that, then go and assert your ideas somewhere else. Otherwise patiently take each ball whether curved or not and prove that you are able to bat it away like a pro.
peace
c20
- Status