Well, if I misunderstood your posts, I'm sorry for the harsh post. I do welcome a sincere discussion and that's why I'm here for. Besides it's an open forum. But sometimes when I'm caught in a never ending circular arguments with no end in sight and the other person refuses to consider my arguments or answer them, each time repeating his assertion in a different way, I tend to loose patience. May be I shouldn't. I have been on the computer answering posts all day.
Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
c20H25N3o said:
But even professional people have to follow certain codes of conduct.
I don't agree with discussing things just for the sake of winning or losing an argument or even to save one's positions/ stands at all costs. That's really against the spirit.
This discussion board will be of any use only if people come here with an open mind not to bowl over an obvious opponent but to learn from him and to help him see the reality as we see it --- which is different from trying to win whether by hook or crook. This demands that one is willing to consider what the other person is saying, as well as in helping him in seeing one's point of view if there is a problem. Who cares whe wins or loses.
Truth should win. And that is all that matters.
Buddha1 said:
You have to understand that your words are going to be interpreted differently the world over and in a debate each will repeat their assertions according to their understanding of your position especially if they disagree with it. It may be that they are not getting it like me, but then you have to make more of an effort to talk in a language we can understand. Make your assertions more succinct to avoid ambiguity.
If you are just looking for people to agree with you, I am afraid you have come to the wrong forum.
peace
c20
Honey, you have studied your own psyche --- I've studied thousands of people. And I've studied various cultures. That's a huge difference. This is my field of work. You have to give me that. I am not discounting your personal experiences. But like I have noted in the other post --- you guys are biased against the topic and your only motive is to disrupt, which is not only disgusting, it is against the spirit of this discussion board.Avatar said:
I mean I have been on other threads, and I've been angry at what they 've been saying. But before I say something I try to be sure of myself --- not just say something because I hate the 'cause'.
Agreed.c20H25N3o said:
And may I also ask you to do the same. I mean yes I do talk in a different language, but iwould you also please make efforts to reach out to the other so that we can have a meaningful discussion --- that can broaden our outlook.
I have no personal motive in being here and I have nothing else to gain from here. Nobody really knows me, and even if I win it is not going to get me my bread and butter or rewards or acclaims.
I want to share in earnest and am understandably upset when I don't see that sincerity in the other person.
I did not use 'All'. I said men --- and that is used to convery the general trend. But what shows your bias clearly is that you did not choose to take exceptions with C20 when he made a similar statement implying that All men have sexual instincts for women (he too did not use the word 'all'!)
Also, don't you see that the post that you are referring to was meant to be funny to show C20 how 'funny' and irrational his previous argument was.you just read one post and get all worked up!
And you got me worked up too --- and that accounts for the verbal duel with C20. You had a perfectly valid point, but I just read your first statement which was insulting and took the entire post to be just crap meant to incite. I think in order to avoid that in future if you are making a sensibel point, even an objection you should try to be serious and to the point --- definitely not abusive and avoid being accusing if you can.
Thank you!
Also, don't you see that the post that you are referring to was meant to be funny to show C20 how 'funny' and irrational his previous argument was.you just read one post and get all worked up!
And you got me worked up too --- and that accounts for the verbal duel with C20. You had a perfectly valid point, but I just read your first statement which was insulting and took the entire post to be just crap meant to incite. I think in order to avoid that in future if you are making a sensibel point, even an objection you should try to be serious and to the point --- definitely not abusive and avoid being accusing if you can.
Thank you!
Avatar said:
I mean i would never use the following in a real argument.
Buddha1 said:
It does not mean anything. I am surprised how you even thought of it as an argument. I mean what has sun shine got to do with sexual interest in men or woman or whoever. Just like branches shooting and trees bearing fruits have nothing to do with heterosexual ideology.
I didn't read what C20 said. If I had, I would have pointed out about the asexual people.
If one says men, then that presumes all men, exactly if you say rabbits in early mornings are white, one would presume that all rabbits in early mornings are white, but that's just subjective interpretation and I agree that it could be understood not only in one way.
Buddha1 said:
I did not see it. Was it posted in this thread? I haven't read every message in it, because I get fed up with comments like "This thread is stupid!" I don't recall you having posted any such thing recently. Or maybe I'm not remembering it... Refresh my memory, then.
Look, I DO get the part about masculine men shunning what they feel is feminine. But it's your definitions of gender identity and/or sexuality that are confusing me.
This is what I see: you keep referring to HOMOSEXUAL and GAY as if it's automatically FEMININE. In MY world, the term homosexual simply denotes that a person is predominantly attracted to their own gender (and I suppose it goes for lesbians too).
Buddha1 said:
Here you equate gay with femininity. My definition of the word gay is predominant same-gender attraction. An effeminate or masculine character doesn't enter into the equation. In high school I was once "approached" (for lack of a better word) by some guy that could be considered a jock. I believe wrestling was his sport of choice (Greeks, sigh). NOT the type of person you'd expect. Point is, I had heard a few rumours that he was gay. The word used was "gay". He didn't walk around with a limp wrist, speak with an exaggerated girly voice (with a lisp), or call people "Girlfriend" all the time.
I think our (or my) misunderstanding here revolves solely around definitions. When you said that "gay people are opposed" to your theories, gay can mean men who are extremely effeminate or men who are extremely, almost overtly masculine. Maybe not where YOU come from, but you maybe need to be a bit more careful with labels.
The reason it appears that we're arguing about this is because of differences in defining labels and identities. That's all I can see.
Is rap music at all popular where you're from? In America, you rarely find young black people (my age group) that DON'T like rap. But if you said "All black people just LOVE rap!" to the right black person, they may very well get offended by it. Some rap is very childish, borderline barbaric, and teaches very base virtues and morals. Not all of it is like that, but it IS a trait of many rappers to to talk incessantly about violence, money, and women as objects. Automatically associating all black people with that can and does cause consternation, for obvious reasons.
I made that comparison because your statement that "gay = effeminate" is not truthful. Not to people who have grown up thinking that homosexuality means being attracted to one's own gender. I am one of those people. The effeminate sassy gay man is a very popular stereotype (and I admit, it CAN be funny sometimes!) but it's not always very accurate.
I know you mentioned differences between your world and mine, but here in my country, you use the words "gay" and "homosexual" and you're referring to a greatly varied crowd from all walks of life and mindsets. Sure, there are stereotypes for reasons, but people make too big of a deal about them and they aren't true for everyone.
Buddha1 said:
I'm understanding some of what you're saying, but my definitions of certain words are deeply ingrained in my vocabulary and your definitions of these same words are somewhat at odds. It's rather trivial.
Thanks for not blaming me!
You said "straight" men feel like fish out of water when around "gay" men. But your definition of gay is simply feminine men who like other men. (This is all very silly to be arguing about what these words mean!) I'm not very masculine, but I'm not very feminine; I consider myself close to androgyny more than anything. I can't say that I identify with EITHER of those groups. I've been around gay men who are very obviously womany, gossipy, all exaggerated and saying "Oh my GOD!" like little sissies which can be amusing.That's definitely not me, but I still call myself gay!
The rest of these people you're talking about I would label bisexual! Call me a simpleton, if you will, but that's the way I see it. If men are comfortable with either sex then I'll call them bisexual. And if they only like the opposite sex then let's call them heterosexual (although I think you already do that).
Maybe I've rambled on this subject too long, but your definition of what "gay" means is not MY OWN, and I felt it needed to be addressed. As with the illustration of rap music and black people, one should be careful with labels.
But, what are labels but for confusion? I asked about a mass-marketed identity, and you said you didn't need to invent it because it's already a reality. Well, it's too bad that men in your country like having sex with other men, but think being "homosexual" is degrading and womanly. It's just a word. To them it means something to be shunned. To me, it simply describes which gender you're attracted to the most, NOT which gender you identify with. There IS a difference, and I KNOW you mentioned gender identity as opposed to sexual preference, so I'm acknowledging it.
Then why should I waste my time with you! I have got better things to do!john smith 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.
And anyone who is not my enemy is my pal.
Buddha1 said:
Are you speaking of working in the office? Where a bunch of guys were coming on to you? If that's what you're referring to, I don't KNOW what to think of it, honestly! A little weird, perhaps. Wouldn't happen around here, I know that!
Or is it something else you're talking about?
How many confused coming of age faggot threads can one queer open?
Shut up already and go fuck a dude, we don't care.
Shut up already and go fuck a dude, we don't care.
Maybe some of these threads could be merged?
Giambattista said:
Giambattista said:
Giambattista said:
Giambatista, I am happy that you chose to discuss this issue.Giambattista said:
I have intentionally used the western terms of sexual orientation in a totally different way from the west that has nothing or little to do with sexual orientation and is more about gender orientation.
Because these terms of sexual orientation are misleading and the source of male oppression.
They are enforced on my gullible population by westernised people using western money. And I've seen how my society changes the meaning of these words to suit its culture. But nevertheless, every time these terms are enforced on us, a little of our sexual freedom dies and we become a little more heterosexual. See how you label things changes your perception abou things.
I have deliberately tried to create a confusion so that people can match them with other evidences I am giving and see how stupid the whole idea of sexual orientation is. I also make things clear by giving my clearcut definitions. Some people pay heed, but I'm surprised that most people don't care or seem to understand. Actually I may be wrong, many people understand what I'm saying but it goes against their inetrest and so they don't want to consider it.
This is the most important point. It's not an insignificant difference. It's your key to understanding the real world. If you make the effort and could experience or feel the other definitions you will get an opportunity to see this world as it was meant to be and your own true place in this world--- To that extent it is like knowing one's real self. Only a non-heterosexual society can teach you that. And it's liberating.Giambattista said:
These differences are the key to the real natural world, that has the potential to empower you beyond belief. It is something that actually belongs to you only. But the heterosexual society through its definitions and mechanisms had deprived you of it. TRY IT!
I'll take the rest of the points raised by you later.
- Status