Buddha1 said:
I was, rather, looking behind yours.
And I haven't been presented with any "evidences" to brush off.
Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
I was, rather, looking behind yours.
And I haven't been presented with any "evidences" to brush off.
The Marquis said:
If people started looking at their ownselves before finding fault with others this world will be a much more reasonable place.
Then ask for them, instead of trying to bother about my motives and my sexual orientation (that stupid concept invented by stupid --- rather cunning people!).The Marquis said:
If I were talking out of my hat, and was indeed only a 'heterophobic' person then any reasonable person sure of me being wrong --- seeing that I am 'pretending' to be scientific and talking about 'evidences' --- any reasonable and open minded person would straight away ask, "O.k., let's look at what you've got!"
That you guys are intensely insecure and are scared stiff to touch the assertion being debated is a strong indicator that I've won the debate even before it started.
Don't try to engage me in a game of personal accusations like Huwy --- that's really childish! If you want to discuss, do it in a scientific spirit.Quantum Quack said:
Where have I claimed anything about men fantasizing about women being unnatural. You are reading too much. Or may be you are jumping to conclusions too soon. Obviously you don't know much about this world apart from what your highly controlled society has shown you! Open your eyes, there's much more to this world!
Nowhere have I made any such claims about homosexuality. And I think lower of people like you than who you call 'lower animals'. You and your sick religion and equally sick science.Quantum Quack said:
If you want to discuss the naturalness of heterosexuality please go to the following threads and don't waste this space:
- There is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature.
- Heterosexuality is unnatural in humans too.
- Is heterosexuality unnatural (this one created by an overenthusiastic heterosexual!)?
Needless to say that you are presenting your own desires as those of 'men', while I've nowhere talked about my personal desires or needs!
That's really interesting!Quantum Quack said:
Indeed, as I started working on straight men's issues, and started seeing the issues of gender and sexuality very very consciously, I started wondering --- why are these people showing such profound although suppressed and hidden interest in me and other straight men --- they are supposed to be 'heterosexuals'. This is what the western advanced science tells us.
I was really, really confused for a looooong time. It has taken me years to solve the mystery --- and I was startled and shocked. It revealed a deep rooted conspiracy going back to thousands of years --- but perfected by your queer heterosexual society.
And that's how I'm here!
Giambattista said:
We know how straight men are. What we are is different from what we show or report. If we accept 1% of what is not considered 'straight' then it means we are hiding 75% of it inside us.
But more importantly.....
You will never know the truth about human sexual need if you don't stop seeing them from the distorting prism of 'sexual orientation'. When I say 95% of men have a sexual need for men, I don't mean they are homosexuals, nor that the need is exclusively for men.
You guys love to see things in black and white.
There are only a few men who are totally into men and other few who are totally into women. But those totally into women are much less in terms of percentage than men who are totally into men. And the quality of straightness falls into the latter category.
Giambattista said:But the fear of being rejected and being the only one was too much for me to handle, so I tried to cover up by playing the game. The normal game. Of course I'm like everyone else. It may be the other people who are queer, but not me. Not us. Never.
Like I said, a few people knew I was "gay" if I felt like telling them, but the fear and the pressure around this guy was like being pushed back into the closet, to use a silly but appropriate cliche. Like it was contagious.
AND THAT IS THE POINT!
When I look back on it sometimes, I feel a little foolish. I should have known better. I'm not a flaming queen. I'm queer as in WEIRD, but you're generally not going to know unless you ask me. And generally you'll get an awkward but somewhat coherent answer from me. Point is, up to that point I hadn't been vocal about it by any means, but not ashamed in any way. I was basically comfortable with my sexuality, but I liked to skirt the issue if people tried to get the truth out of me. I guess I personally though it was funnier to drop hints and be a little enigmatic. Some of us love mystery!
Then, when I met this guy, because I highly suspected that he was interested in me but at the same time totally unsure, all these defenses went up that I really hadn't experienced in a long time. I suddenly became frightened of being the ONLY one. I suddenly had this GREAT fear of being found out and having to realize and deal with the fact that YES, I was alone.
He consumed my thoughts all the time. Many of these thoughts were driven by fear. I liked him so much, but I was so afraid that it was all in vain and that I would somehow see or hear something about him that would totally crush me. That was one of the most trying periods of my life. I was constantly wanting to be near him (like at work) but at the same time I wanted to ignore him. And he appeared to act that way too. It was almost like looking into a mirror.
One of us would ask what the other was doing, and then the other would feign disinterest. Like having the chance to be alone, and then DELIBERATELY pulling the plug to make it look like he or I had better things to do. No. When I cut myself, it doesn't hurt, it just looks that way...
All of this because the pressure to be and act "normal" and the FEAR of being the only one with these feelings HELD A GUN to my head (and goddammit, my HEART!) and forced me to do and say things when I REALLY wanted to do the opposite. I COULD NOT WIN. I WAS CONSTANTLY BEING DEFEATED BY PRESSURE AND FEAR.
No one has ever both ATTRACTED and DISTURBED me so much at the same time. Never. "I love you, but I have to hate you. It can't be any other way. It has to be THIS way."
So much of my time and emotions were wasted in this kind of stagnant trench warfare. Little progress was ever made. I eventually waved the white flag and still I got shot!
In the end, I tried to break through and I told him way more than I ever got from him. He played that tired old role to the end. I'm sure someone gave him a medal for valour. HA HA HA!
There were other guys that I felt maybe were attracted to me. Although this was the most extreme, it seemed to follow a general template/framework of this type of behaviour, so I can see where maybe this was occurring in other places, but not to this extent.
I haven't met very many new people lately, so it's not surprising that I don't see more examples of this. I'm kind of a loner to begin with.
I wish I had the talent of describing such difficult phenomenon as men in as vivid and accurate words as you do.
Evidence of pressures on men from a present day traditional, non/ semi-heterosexual society
This guy came to me when he was 33 and married. When John (not his real name!) was 16 he was a great looking lad. There was a tenant in his neighbourhood who was 24 years and according to John the most handsome man that ever walked this earth.
They became friends and John startd visiting him often. One day the tenant softly took John's hands in his own. John didn't resist and they kept sitting like that for hours --- without saying a word. Now John started visiting him daily and the tenant would hold his hand quietly and they would just sit there --- not saying a word. John did not show any interest or initiative from his side, but allowed the tenant to do what he was doing. In fact he wanted him to do more. But he never said it.
Once they had a 'tiff' and John stopped going to his place. One day passed, then two --- then an entire month. And John didn't go to him. Meanwhile, John had no idea what had befell the tenant. He was badly in love with John, and in desperation wrote a long 'love' letter to him and put that in his letter box. It talked about how the tenant loved John and couldn't live without him. He also said that he knew that "John" love him too.
What do you think John did? Was he amused that his love finally blossomed? No. He became very, very angry. Straight men want to do things within the limits of heterosexuality set by our societies (even though we are not a 'heterosexual' society as such, we have much the same pressures!). He wanted the tenant to do things quietly. He was willing to play an indifferent part where he did not have to own up his sexual need. He wanted it to seem that it was only the tenant's needs not his. But everything must happen without a word being spoken. That's the deal that straight men have between them. NEVER talk about it! NEVER acknowledge it. Just do it and forget that it ever happened. We were just not serious......there were no girls, our passions were high so we just did it. It does not mean ANYTHING!
So John decides, he cannot continue with this 'friendship' anymore. In any case he had been struggling with his feelings eversince he met this tenant. Meeting him made him extremely insecure about his 'heterosexual' status. But at the sametime he couldn't leave him. Now that his letter -- by acknowledging their relationship made anything further impossible, it was easy for him to take a decision. And he had to defend his heterosexual status as fiercely as he could.
So, he walks over to this tenants house, shouts at him for daring to send such letters to him. He tore that letter upon his face, and told him he has "no interests in men whatsoever!". He finds the whole idea "disgusting!".
He came back to his house and in his own words, shut himself up in his room and cried for hours. For one week he lost his appetite and was depressed.
The tenant left the neighbourhood in week's time after that.
Let me narrate you a case I counselled (just one of the scores of such cases that I did!)Giambattista said:
This guy came to me when he was 33 and married. When John (not his real name!) was 16 he was a great looking lad. There was a tenant in his neighbourhood who was 24 years and according to John the most handsome man that ever walked this earth.
They became friends and John startd visiting him often. One day the tenant softly took John's hands in his own. John didn't resist and they kept sitting like that for hours --- without saying a word. Now John started visiting him daily and the tenant would hold his hand quietly and they would just sit there --- not saying a word. John did not show any interest or initiative from his side, but allowed the tenant to do what he was doing. In fact he wanted him to do more. But he never said it.
Once they had a 'tiff' and John stopped going to his place. One day passed, then two --- then an entire month. And John didn't go to him. Meanwhile, John had no idea what had befell the tenant. He was badly in love with John, and in desperation wrote a long 'love' letter to him and put that in his letter box. It talked about how the tenant loved John and couldn't live without him. He also said that he knew that "John" love him too.
What do you think John did? Was he amused that his love finally blossomed? No. He became very, very angry. Straight men want to do things within the limits of heterosexuality set by our societies (even though we are not a 'heterosexual' society as such, we have much the same pressures!). He wanted the tenant to do things quietly. He was willing to play an indifferent part where he did not have to own up his sexual need. He wanted it to seem that it was only the tenant's needs not his. But everything must happen without a word being spoken. That's the deal that straight men have between them. NEVER talk about it! NEVER acknowledge it. Just do it and forget that it ever happened. We were just not serious......there were no girls, our passions were high so we just did it. It does not mean ANYTHING!
So John decides, he cannot continue with this 'friendship' anymore. In any case he had been struggling with his feelings eversince he met this tenant. Meeting him made him extremely insecure about his 'heterosexual' status. But at the sametime he couldn't leave him. Now that his letter -- by acknowledging their relationship made anything further impossible, it was easy for him to take a decision. And he had to defend his heterosexual status as fiercely as he could.
So, he walks over to this tenants house, shouts at him for daring to send such letters to him. He tore that letter upon his face, and told him he has "no interests in men whatsoever!". He finds the whole idea "disgusting!".
He came back to his house and in his own words, shut himself up in his room and cried for hours. For one week he lost his appetite and was depressed.
The tenant left the neighbourhood in week's time after that.
Last edited:
I have posted a response to this in the thread "Pressures to be heterosexual" because it suits that thread.Giambattista said:
Click here to reach it
How about a very sick society that disempowers men and mutilates their capacity to bond (especially sexually!) with other men. How do you know it's only one or two people and not 95%, when its all hidden.Avatar said:
The thing is that we know that there are pressures. And if we are a society that is really open, fair and free as we claim......and we have all this astounding science and sophistication --- doesn't it make sense for us to explore this pressure and see:
- the extent and nature of this pressure,
- what effect do these pressures have on men?
- what makes men vulnerable to these pressures?
- Why are these pressures there at all?
- Who do these pressures benefit?
Or are the lives of men unimportant and the pain and suffering they go through inconsequential? Are women's gender, issues and rights the only things that are significant? Why is it that in the case of men its always their fault, not the faulit of the society, and in the case of women its always the society's fault never theirs? Is this the heterosexual brand of gender equity! The anti-men brand!
Last edited:
I didn't say that that doesn't reflect the majority and neither did I say it does, I have no information on this.
Doesn't make them less weakminded though.
Please, please, raping is a criminal offence, not wanting to fuck with someone is not.
The man punishes himself, and weak he is because he couldn't resist the ideas of his society.
We are talking about masculine men here --- the most powerful human gender. What makes them so weak? Who makes them weak? Isn't it something worth finding out --- especially for those claiming to study or know about psychology or social science?Avatar said:
Why has there never been a study on this like they study women's issues? Why aren't there any grants to study men's real issues (and not those defined by women or the true sexual minority (heterosexual males)!)
Big muscles don't mean big brains (or intellect).
That's not a man<->society problem, that's an any_individual<->society problem,
to give a short answer - insufficient development of the psyche because of abolishment of the initiation rituals and the glorification of staying the child (at least in most western societies).
- Status