Heterosexuality is unnatural

Status
Not open for further replies.
i have never really explored this subject before, maybe thats why i'm in this thread.

"...evidences because it went against the 'darwin' theory..." is this just because it was male-male sex, or is there something else to it?

did you see the post i made after you edited?
 
RoyLennigan said:
are what we call homosexuality and heterosexuality just side effects of sexual reproduction, then?
Click to expand...
They are purely inventions of the modern west.

Sex between opposite sexes is only for procreation in the wild and non-heterosexual societies (even though it is pleasurable!). Such unions are never sought unless the male and female are both ready to procreate (Even males need to be ready, as shown by various evidences from the wild!).

It's sex between the same-sexes that is sought for their pleasure and bonding value --- in the wild and in non-heterosexual societies.
 
RoyLennigan said:
"...evidences because it went against the 'darwin' theory..." is this just because it was male-male sex, or is there something else to it?
Click to expand...
That's my own conclusion. There are many reasons why scientists have sought to play with the truth. And they are still widely doing it --- as far as 'sexuality" is concerned.
 
RoyLennigan said:
are what we call homosexuality and heterosexuality just side effects of sexual reproduction, then?
Click to expand...
Sexual need for the same-sex existed even when the reproduction was asexual. Therefore sex and reproduction are not primarily and indistinguishably the same.

When species transformed into male and female for better reproduction, sex was also used for reproduction, but sex between the opposites was only limited to reproduction, as is widely evidenced from the wild (barring birds -- and birds have a really different make up as I've pointed out in another post!).
 
right, i think i see what you're saying.

but i dont think you're thread title exactly fits. heterosexuality is natural, but human the human concept of heterosexuality is unnatural. heterosexuality is a man having sex with a woman. i would say this is as natural as you can get. out of all the things that man does and can do, i'd say that having sex with a woman is the thing that most natural. throughout history, from thousands of years ago and probably thousands of years from now, man has/will be having sex with women. all other sex can only be a byproduct, no matter how natural it is.
 
RoyLennigan said:
male and female minds have developed to be, in a way, like opposites that, when put together, form a whole. human communities have always developed such that they require a male and a female. the abilities of each are often complementary of the other.
Click to expand...
There being too different from each other is exactly the reason why they can't bond emotionally or for long term, unless the female is masculinised and the male is feminised (making heterosexuality queer!). This is exactly what makes heterosexuality unnatural. Unless forced by artifical social forces that train the mind from the beginning.

The thing about 'comlementary' has been made up by the heterosexual society in order to validate heterosexuality.
 
Buddha1 said:
Sexual need for the same-sex existed even when the reproduction was asexual. Therefore sex and reproduction are not primarily and indistinguishably the same.

When species transformed into male and female for better reproduction, sex was also used for reproduction, but sex between the opposites was only limited to reproduction, as is widely evidenced from the wild (barring birds -- and birds have a really different make up as I've pointed out in another post!).
Click to expand...
ah, more of the theory rises to the surface. it makes more sense to me now, this way. yes, i would view reproduction and sex as different things. animals (as well as man, if he didn't know better) don't know that sex will cause pregnancy. sex is just pleasurable, so they do it. sex with the same gender is just as pleasurable because there are no taboos, there is nothing to make them feel it is in some way wrong, because it isnt.
 
Buddha1 said:
There being too different from each other is exactly the reason why they can't bond emotionally or for long term, unless the female is masculinised and the male is feminised (making heterosexuality queer!). This is exactly what makes heterosexuality unnatural. Unless forced by artifical social forces that train the mind from the beginning.

The thing about 'comlementary' has been made up by the heterosexual society in order to validate heterosexuality.
Click to expand...
you can see the the physical complements, the mental ones seem to just cause conflict most of the time, i agree with you there, but that is largely due to the state of society. but there is no need for an artificial force to bring opposite sexes together. there is already an overpowering natural force that causes irresistable desire to have sex with the opposite sex (puberty). it is just extremely exaggerated by our society.
 
RoyLennigan said:
right, i think i see what you're saying.

but i dont think you're thread title exactly fits. heterosexuality is natural, but human the human concept of heterosexuality is unnatural. heterosexuality is a man having sex with a woman. i would say this is as natural as you can get. out of all the things that man does and can do, i'd say that having sex with a woman is the thing that most natural. throughout history, from thousands of years ago and probably thousands of years from now, man has/will be having sex with women. all other sex can only be a byproduct, no matter how natural it is.
Click to expand...
I think it's right on! Heterosexuality is not male-female sex. It's the male-female sex which is natural not heterosexuality. just like it's male-male sexual bonds that are natural not 'homosexuality'.

Heterosexuality has the following important consitituents for male-female sexual desire to be known as heterosexuality:
- A male - female desire which goes beyong procreation and can sustain a long lasting relationship on its basis.
- A repulsion for male eroticism.
- A masculine trait.
- A majoritarian trait --- found in most members of the species.

Most of the above is difficult to find in the nature and in non-heterosexual societies such as mine (though things are changing fast here!)

Homosexuality in practical terms refers to:
- A feminine male's sexual desire for men
- A deviant behaviour, a biological anamoly
- A minority trait found only in rare 'class' of males.

As you can see, homosexuality fails to represent the sexual need that the majority of masculine straight men feel for other men -- mostly other straight men.
 
Last edited:
RoyLennigan said:
you can see the the physical complements, the mental ones seem to just cause conflict most of the time, i agree with you there, but that is largely due to the state of society.
Click to expand...
The heterosexual society does all it can to make heterosexuality possible, and that includes finishing all male-only spaces and making them mixed gender. This directly results in heterosexuality (meaning marginalised male-male sex!)

RoyLennigan said:
but there is no need for an artificial force to bring opposite sexes together. there is already an overpowering natural force that causes irresistable desire to have sex with the opposite sex (puberty). it is just extremely exaggerated by our society.
Click to expand...
Ironically, puberty is the time when boys have an intense desire for the same sex bonds. So much so that even the 'western' scientist otherwise so opposed to so-called 'homosexuality' have to accept the adolescence as a 'homosexual' phase. This is the time when the need for the opposite sex is the lease, if we go by the nature.

In nature, as well as in non-heterosexual societies, sex with the female is reserved for the latter part of life.
 
RoyLennigan said:
i think there is much truth to that, but i think there is more to it. obviously there is an innate desire for feminacy in a mate from the male perspective. and women have some very distinguishing features in this respect.
There is femininity in males, and masculinity in females --- including in their appearance. But having said that I have to say that the theory of 'opposites attract' is again an invention of the modern west. Opposites do attract, but the attraction is short lived. It's the attraction for the same which is long lasting. It's been proved with research in the west too that Likes, afterall, do attract.

My own work has shown that masculine men are much more likely to find other masculine men and masculine features attractive. My work experience with the gay community has also shown that gay men tend to like very feminine features, body shapes and behaviours amongst males. These are traits that they consider sexy.

RoyLennigan said:
therefore i would posit that, in a totally isolated community of humans that had no idea what sex was or anything about how one might think it "should be", they would, because of hormones and instinct, have sex (obviously), and that, although there would most likely be "homosexuality" as well as "heterosexuality", they would soon find out that male-female sex works out best. its naturally developed that way. i dont think they would have any concept of "heterosexuality" being right and "homosexuality" being wrong--in fact they'd probably have huge orgies quite a bit--but it would become obvious to them that sex was meant (or developed) for a man and woman. the opposing hormones that act on each other's brain as a natural aphrodesiac; the instincual desire in men for curves (and the childhood fetish of breasts); how the male and female bodies seem to compliment each other.
Click to expand...
A lot of what you're saying is heterosexual propaganda, often in the garb of science.

In all societies that allow male-male sex, even lightly, alongside marriage, as a masculine trait, men overwhelmingly prefer it. In all of such societies --- including the ancient Greeks or the modern day Afghans men prefer sex with men for bonding and for pleasure. E.g., ancient Greeks men believed that "had it not been for reproduction men would not need women at all!". Likewise, Afghans even today have a saying, "Women for procreation and men for pleasure!"
Click to expand...
 
Buddha1 said:
It is not weird Giambatista, and that is what I want you to understand. It's the society that you live in is wierd. You have been living in a society that has totally marginalised male-male sexual behaviour.
Click to expand...

It seems more like MOST societies have marginalized the behavior.
But...

Yes, it WOULD be very weird to see something like that around here. I wouldn't know what to think.

Sometimes it seems like your usage of words like "homosexual" are in a Western sense, and sometimes you use them with your own definitions.
Maybe we should forget about mere labels and instead use accurate descriptions of the manner of attraction or gender-specific behavior.

I know you've posted your definitions of these terms, and I'll probably be going over them again shortly, but maybe we should rely less on these labels, to spare confusion!!! :confused:

Now, about that empowerment: this apparently comes from knowing the truth about many men's secret desires and repressed feelings for others of their own kind. At least that is what I gather. I can hold this powerful "ace" (to refer to playing cards) and use it to my advantage? I've always felt that certain other young men held these desires (in check), but I don't know if this knowledge is going to alter my life a whole lot.

This is unfortunate, perhaps, but it leads to my next question:

Is this desire only sexual in nature, or does it go deeper? I frankly could care less about mere sex. I'm interested in more, however I don't think EITHER is possible. Knowing that someone else may have the potential for sexual attraction towards me is one thing, (and there are quite a few people that I find attractive physically) but emotionally, psychologically, and even spiritually (dare I even bring THAT into the discussion) I could never bring myself to their "level".

I have several requirements that go beyond physical, and I constantly find these requirements remaining unfulfilled. This isn't just about whether they would be willing to have sex with me. I think you should have gathered that from some of my posts, and my last private message to you. It regarded events revolving around that one person that I CANNOT regard as normal. They were very ABnormal, and I cannot be convinced otherwise. A period of about 3 years surrounding all of that had many of these extremely odd "coincidences". (I know these were weird, because they really don't happen anymore except very rarely, and the contrast between that period and the present is very apparent to me)

I find it somewhat strange that you didn't really say anything about it. However I could not then and cannot now separate these events from this person. Not all of these events involved this person. They started before I got to know him (before I worked with him), but I felt that this wasn't any ordinary relationship or attraction because of all this.

I felt that either someone was trying to tell me that I was on the right track because these strange premonitions and "coincidences" bolstered my hope in love AND life, or that someone was merely leading me on to confuse me, because eventually my hopes in this person, and relationships in general were pretty much destroyed. And these things eventually stopped happening. It was not just emotionally disappointing, but spiritually as well.

Maybe you don't have anything to say about this. It MAY seem to be off-topic, but the two things were intertwined and I have never seen things the same way since. Knowing the so-called "truth about men" may help my mind somewhat, but is it really going to truly empower me, like you say?

Am I being difficult?!?! ;)
In reality, I'm only being completely honest. I am NOT like most people, and what works for many most often doesn't apply to me. I hold a great deal of interest in this topic and your theories for obvious reasons, but physical attraction is not all I'm concerned with. You seem to have been addressing this mostly from a physical/sexual viewpoint.

Well, since you're a counselor or at least claim to be one (who knows? maybe you're a really weird/smart person who's just making things up!) maybe you can counsel me? HA HA HA!!!

I may write a little more later if I can think of something to say.
 
Buddha1 said:
I think you're not trying to understand the definitions that I am using of the western terms like "homosexual", straight, heterosexual, etc. I've clarified my terms moreo than once on this board.
Click to expand...

I tried to touch on this in my previous post. Maybe we should try to stick to using descriptions instead of words with fickle definitions?
 
Giambattista said:
Is this desire only sexual in nature, or does it go deeper? I frankly could care less about mere sex. I'm interested in more, however I don't think EITHER is possible. Knowing that someone else may have the potential for sexual attraction towards me is one thing, (and there are quite a few people that I find attractive physically) but emotionally, psychologically, and even spiritually (dare I even bring THAT into the discussion) I could never bring myself to their "level".
Click to expand...

You referred (twice I think) to a "straight" man feeling like a fish out of water around "gay" men (which I believe referred to feminine men as opposed to the masculine straight man). I feel like a fish out of water compared to just about EVERYONE! Which is what I was referring to when I mentioned bringing myself to their level.
 
Let us be murdered, ritually. By dogs. And dogs abound. Make no mistake. They're all that the world is made of. Period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top