Heterosexuality is unnatural

[Buddha1]

Evidence from the western society that heterosexuality is unnatural in humans"

Men have been coping with the marriage institution bravely for so many centuries. They try to lighten their misery by making jokes about marriage.

The following poetry appears in a recent cartoon series from America.

Breathes there a man
with soul so dead
that never in his life hath said,
"Why, oh why, did I ever wed?"

 

[Giambattista]

Yes. I am the only one.

 

[Giambattista]

I know by the lack of response from those who considered themselves worthy.

 

[Giambattista]

I mean no harm, but if there is no solution, then there is no solution.

 

[Buddha1]

It seems more like MOST societies have marginalized the behavior.

But the western society takes the cake. Believe me. Traditional societies like mine too have persecuted male-male bonds, but they were content with pushing them in the background and forcing men to 'marry'. They did not care for heterosexuality. In fact they did not tolerate it at all. On the other hand it allowed the mainstream, regular men to keep sexual bonds with other men behind the scenes. So it was not marginalised, at least not to the extent found in the west. It was mostly pushed behind the scenes.

It was not considered a feminine thing, rather a weakening factor for men. All men are supposed to be able to be attracted by other men, in all traditional societies, and there are several sayings to that effect.

The western society does not tolerate male-male bonds in the mainstream masculine male community at all. That is why it has created the modern tool of 'heterosexuality'.

The type of isolation you feel is almost unheard of in my society. And it's not only you, I've seen transexual heterosexual males who feel extremely isolated and like a fish out of water. They come to my country and find inspiration from other transgendered males who lead a much more integrated existence here.

 

[Buddha1]

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

Maybe you should live in a non-heterosexual society for some time.

 

[Buddha1]

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:

I can understand your loneliness and your need for love. But I have not many answers for you there. Your loneliness is all the more unfair, because you are starving amidst plenty --- when almost every man next to you is deep down fighting with his feelings for other men, or has already mutilated it.

No, I can't remove your loneliness or give you a formulae to find love. But then if you cannot expect it when you're living in such a hostile environment for male=male love.

The empowerment I'm talking about is different. Finding love is important, but more important than that is to find one's true place in the scheme of things, to find where you really belong --- To find out who you really are! Your true identity. Once you find that it would be easier to solve the puzzle that is life. Who knows you may also find your love one day. Perhaps as you help other men in your society --- you'll find mutual love and support.

Please don't expect life to be easy if you're a man who wants to base his life on his sexual feelings for men. But you are by no means the only sufferer. Think of all those straight men who are living under the garb or heterosexuals and still have sexual need for men in recognisible form, yet they have to hide it day in and day out. They may look powerful and content --- but they are burning for sure.

But then to be a man is to burn, especially in a heterosexual society.

 

[Buddha1]

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".

Giambatista, I've seen scores of straight men (meaning regular, masculine men who in your society would take up the heterosexual identity) fight with their emotional attachment with other men. They just don't want it. It takes away their power, their social masculinity. They just want to have superficial sex and don't want to acknowledge that it ever happened or that it means anything to them.

But it is the social pressures doing their work. Masculinity means a lot to men. It is also a subject that you should care to know more about.

Deep down, the true nature of men is to bond emotionally with other men. Men are supposed to have bonds with other men where they die for each other. The same does not go for male-female bonds in the case of masculine (in your society straight) men.

But this information is not going to be of any help to you. Because, men at least in your lifetime will never get rid of their burden. It will take ages and ages of hard work by individuals like me to be able to make any difference in the thinking of men -- to give them empowerment so that they can oppose and overturn fake social masculinity and along with that the social mechanism of oppression that has persecuted them for centuries, perhaps milleniums.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Your loneliness is all the more unfair, because you are starving amidst plenty --- when almost every man next to you is deep down fighting with his feelings for other men, or has already mutilated it.

Surely you are adding 'cruelty' to his loneliness by deceiving him that there truly is "water, water everywhere. Only it is 'hidden' because of nasty society and their heterosexual tools"

Can't you accept that people are heterosexual because of sexual """preference""" ?

peace

c20

 

[Buddha1]

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?

You're right Giambatista. I have very little to say about that -- at least now, because admittedly I have not yet read the post that contained this information. Please don't be offended, I plan to read it in a day or two. Meanwhile I wanted to concentrate on where I can be more useful.

 

[Padmora]

At the dawn of the human civilisation, men and women lived as two distinct groups, Women’s primary drive in life was to raise children. They raised them together with other women. Sex with men was primarily meant for reproduction. Any sexual bonding/ intimacy happened only amongst women. Men, like his cousin the Chimpanzees, mated with women only occasionally, most mated a few times in their lives and many preferring not to mate at all. The primary drive of men was to bond with other men --- this bond helped them to stay together in strongly bonded groups, when otherwise their competition instinct would make them kill each other. The survival of the male group depended upon how cohesive they were. It ensured that they could find food, protect their clan from enemy gangs and it even helped in mating with the female, when the time came. Only as much procreation happened as the nature could sustain healthily --- so that humans could live without disrupting the nature.

I assume that this is a picture of your ideal society. First I'll agree with you on one point, women are better to take care of children than men. But I don't think it would be healthy for the children to grow up only with women. And I don't think that men today would want to give up all the care of their own children to the mothers.

 

[Padmora]

And Buddha, if a person comes with a statement that conflicts with previous knowledge and what experience shows, it's his duty to prove his statement right. Not for others to prove him wrong.

The only "evidences" you have come up with so far are talks about your "own work" and your "own experience".

 

[Padmora]

The overpopulation is due to the improved health care, not heterosexuality. In the old times even if a women gave birth to 10-15 children, only about 2 survived to be grown-ups.

 

[Padmora]

In nature, as well as in non-heterosexual societies, sex with the female is reserved for the latter part of life.

Yeah, you better watch out Buddha, even you can get interested in a woman when you get older

 

[Giambattista]

I mean no harm, but if there is no solution, then there is no solution.

Just wanting to say I was a little drunk last night and that my weird posts weren't totally serious. Sorry if I turned anyone off.

 

[Giambattista]

I will read your responses and post later.

 

[Buddha1]

The overpopulation is due to the improved health care, not heterosexuality. In the old times even if a women gave birth to 10-15 children, only about 2 survived to be grown-ups.

Not in your society, because you are rich and use advanced technology --- nevertheless harmful ones to rid heterosexuality of procreation. But in other parts of the world it has created a havoc.

However, it's funny that the ideology of heterosexuality wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to use both the sides of an argument to validate itself. On one hand it claims to be natural, biological and superior because of procreation, on the other hand it goes all out to rid the male-female sex of procreation both biologically and socially.

 

[Buddha1]

Yeah, you better watch out Buddha, even you can get interested in a woman when you get older

I have not said that I don't like women.

 

[Buddha1]

In nature, as well as in non-heterosexual societies, sex with the female is reserved for the latter part of life.

I'd like to change that to in nature as well as the ancient pre-marriage societies.

 

[Buddha1]

I assume that this is a picture of your ideal society.

No Padmora, this is history. But we should be as close to our nature as we possibly can. And we should accomodate as much of our own nature in the society as much as we possibly can. There should be no room for unnecessary control of human natural needs and aspirations --- for no visible benefit to the society, but to keep a few in power --- something that heterosexuality does. That is why I say it is harmful.

First I'll agree with you on one point, women are better to take care of children than men. But I don't think it would be healthy for the children to grow up only with women. And I don't think that men today would want to give up all the care of their own children to the mothers.

This is one point I'll agree with you on.

The marriage institution did give men a number of sops in order to get married. And they were quite a handful. Apart from easy 'manhood' that is the prime concern of each man, marriage gave men ownership of women and her children. While it was the woman who actually gave birth to the child --- the man just gave his sperm the society inflated his ego by celebrating as 'HIS' accomplishment, 'HIS' feat and called him 'potent' for that. Though women went through all the pain and hardship to give birth, the man got othe right to give his name to the child.

Women have made several sacrifices to sustain the marriage institution too.

It is indeed a pleasure to be with children, and men may not find it easy to give that up. Although I know many men who do an extremely bad job of raising children, they just don't want them. But the sacrifices that man has made including his loss of freedom --- are too severe to pay for this advantage.

In any case, I think an ideal society would be where we can strike a balance between our nature and our aspirations as a society. I suggest the following:
- Youth should be reserved for bonding with the same-sex --- both for men and women. Of course for the few who really get on with that the society should give enough space.

- Later youth should be for marriages and raising of children. Again, there should be enough room for those who do not want to marry or procreate. Only those that have the natural capability to bond iwth women should be encouraged to marry. The rest of the men who want to procreate can pass on their genes through non-marital sex with women --- where women will raise the children together with other women --- with lovers and relatives. The female children should continue to live in the women's family as long as they wish to (unless they want to marry and set up home with a man). The males as soon as they reach adolescence should be handed over to the male clan --- whether his fathers/ uncles or to a lover.

- The society should stop manipulating social masculinity as a means of applying pressures on men to control and alter his sexual and romantic behaviours.