Heterosexuality is unnatural

[MetaKron]

One of the problems we have is that the major religions of this planet have used a lot of force, read "mayhem and murder" to attempt to make people do what they say should be natural to them. The fundamental absurdity of this is that if it were natural, they wouldn't have to be forced. Even Americans, even in the 21st century, many of us think that someone who does not conform to certain patterns of sexual behavior is not fit to live. The suicide rate is pretty high among homosexuals.

Weird mindsets and ideas come about because they force us to not look within and not look at reality, but at their idea of what they want reality to be. We get our worldview handed to us by people who have historically burned books, homes, and human beings. To a certain segment of the white Christian population, and to too many of the black Christian population, murder for religion is still acceptable and even mandatory. They just know that they can't do it without going to jail. I am using Christians as an example because Christianity seems to be the better of the major religions as far as human rights go, and everyone else looks worse to me. This is not saying that there's much to be thrilled about with Christianity.

We should impose a regime where freedom of thought is much more protected than it is now. Laws against pornography and sexuality are the thin edge of the wedge, as are laws against drug use. Laws that allow stormtroopers to break into your house looking for forbidden books are laws that crush freedom of thought. We even have a situation in which the FDA will ban books and useful devices and materials and they will walk over human rights to do it. It is still not freedom of thought when there are nasty restrictions against putting those thoughts into practice.

 

[Satyr]

Heterosexuality is most certainly unnatural.
My priest told me so, a while ago, right before he introduced me to the pleasures of anal sex, at the age of seven.
I didn’t believe him at the time and I thought about what he had told me, while gasping for air and trying to keep from yelling too loud from his large member stretching my anal cavity into ‘natural’ proportions.

What can be more natural than an erect penis slamming, over and over again, into the exposed ass of a bent over love puppet, right before he licks it clean and tastes what he had for breakfast?

The mere thought of a vagina and all those liquids and shades of pink makes me gag.

 

[Buddha1]

... as there's no evidence for homosexuality in nature...

Not so fast.

It's true that there is no evidence of homosexuality in nature. But sexual bonding between males -- we have still to talk about that. I think it would be better to start a new thread for that.

So just live as you want...

You cannot live as you want as long as:

- there is intense pressure to be heterosexual

- heterosexuality is blatantly propagated and imposed, and

- sexual bonds between men are driven into a homosexual sub-culture

- sexual desire for men is propagated as feminine and unmanly,

- the original male-only and female-only structure of the society is broken and men are subdued before women in an unnatural mixed gender society.

 

[tablariddim]

Why does the originator of this thread wish to impose his own agenda into accepted human realationships?

Apart from homosexuality, which is actually legal and accepted in most countries, there still is plenty of male bonding going on. Just think of army, team sports (players and spectators), team players in business and proffessions, social drinkers, gamblers and groups of layabouts; it's never really stopped. Most of these types of men are your classic male chauvinists who think they are priviliged and special simply because they have a cock between their legs and most sane people wish that they Would all fuck off and live on their own island somewhere and leave all the wimpy, hetero, cary, shary guys to all the pussy.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The evidence of heterosexuality in nature is the next generation.

 

[MetaKron]

Tablariddim, look at why there are particular kinds of accepted human relationship. For well over 2,000 years a religious law has existed that has told people to kill homosexuals and other people who live differently. Moslems and Christians force people to behave as a certain model of heterosexual on pain of death. What is "accepted" is what we have been forced into for so long that it seems natural to some people. It is still quite accepted in America to hurt people who are perceived as different, too.

 

[tablariddim]

I look at ancient cultures like the Bushmen in Africa, Borneo, South America etc and I see that the men are the hunter gatherers spending most of their time together doing their thing and the women staying together bringing up each others kids and sharing the work in the village and I notice that what they are all doing is borne out of necessity and expedience for their ways of life, but it doesn't make me think that their social structures are in any way superior or more desirable than the structures in the modern world. The way they live their lives suits their purpose and the way modern people live suits theirs.

Thing is, those people are still heterosexual; the men marry their women (in most cases more than one) have children and also play the field. Their wives complain a little but most of them accept it. They're really not that different than some modern societies in that respect.

To blame Christianity or any other religion for the ideal of heterosexuality is absurd. People got married and had families long before any modern religion was documented, but I agree that homosexuality has been supressed mainly due to religious dogma.

I don't equate the clans of tribal men and women with homosexuality, even if it might exist within the groups and which probably does, though that hasn't really been documented by researchers.

I don't have any problems with homosexuality, I accept that some people find their happiness with partners of the same sex and I'm happy for them. What I'm having a problem with is to be told that it should feel more natural for me to prefer male company in all its aspects and only choose to go with a woman for procreation, which I think is just silly.

Tell me, what, is supposed to happen in this alternative more natural society after the female is impregnated? Is she left to bring up the children on her own, or is she supposed to bring them up with a whole bunch of other women in the same situation? Who, is supposed to provide for the women and children; the other women who don't hppen to be pregnant at the time? Because, the absent fathers certainly won't. And, what are the men supposed to be doing during all this time; just hanging out, making money for themselves and screwing each other until it's time to bolster up the population again? Are men to be denied the joy of hands on fatherhood because, it's 'not natural'? I may have been conditioned to think otherwise, but really; why?

 

[MetaKron]

What I blame Christianity for is forcing things on people. The idea of killing homosexuals was to force heterosexuality on people. If it was the natural condition, it wouldn't be necessary to do that. People who are in an "accepted" lifestyle think that they are safe but they really aren't. I think it is delusional to believe that once you have been forced to do "good", the bullies will leave you alone. They find excuses to do more things to you. Once they get started it's an addiction.

Even if you were safe, even if they did leave you alone, the sensation of walking on eggshells makes you crazy. Normal variation in human behavior takes some people outside of boundaries. Why punish some so harshly for that? I'm reminded of that episode of Star Trek Next Generation in which Wesley was going to be euthanized for crossing a white barrier into some flowers by accident. Mister, if I were a member of that society, I would leave it if I could, if I survived to be big enough. If I couldn't leave, I would rip that barrier up, yank the flowers out by the roots, throw rocks through the solarium window, and cackle wildly. This is because, really, when they make us walk on eggshells, they are just waiting for an opportunity to make a human sacrifice. The one difference between that imaginary society and the one I was raised in is that in the imaginary society they do not prolong the pain that they inflict upon the marked man. Everyone else suffers. Our way lets the bullies have the best of both worlds.

 

[jayleew]

So youre saying that in these cases of same sex pairing, that the animals involved have not and will not engage in heterosexual mating at some point in time? That they are distinctly unmoved in any way to engage the opposite sex? or that they can and will resist the opposite sex when its mating season? I doubt that.

It seems to me once again, that in nature, animals are not shy to form relationships sexual or otherwise with either sex in the species. I dont think you can call the way animals behave heterosexual or homosexual anyways. Those are definately human concepts. As far as sex in the animal world go its like someone above said, its dictated by instinct and procreative drive, not by choice.

In humans, Heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same. Both are attracted to only one sex whether it be the same sex or the opposite sex, and both are adverse to any pairing besides their hetero or homo orientations. It doesnt make sense to argue one against the other, in either case both are content to reside with their own particular orientation, or as I like to think of it, dysfunction. To argue in favor of heterosexuality over homosexuality by virtue of procreative potential is hardly a reasonable point in this day and age considering overpopulation is probably the topmost problem with the world today. Realistically if youre going to argue procreative potential or lack of, I think Id draw in favor of homosexuallity right now. The more homosexuality the better. Means less people being brought into a word that has far too many people already. But ultimately, Its no one business but the two or more people involved in any given relationship. We can love who we want to love and no one can or should be able to prevent that.
You cant say that homosexuality is wrong because of their sexual practices. Sexual practice is entirely assumed. You cant say homosexuality is wrong because it says in some book sodomy is a sin, because you dont know and its no ones business how a same sex couple expresses affection. I mean, people love their dogs. I know people who have a relationship with their dog and they could give a shit about people. Should that be considered a sin? or an issue? Do we assume that someone who loves their dog is necessarily fucking their dog? no.
So if this thread was intended to argue for or against any kind of relationship, it would seems its pointless and moot. Same sex, opposite sex, and both sex relationships have, do and will continue to exist in this world. The only thing there is to do about any of it is to get a grip,get used to it.. and learn to get along.

I don't morally agree with any practice besides heterosexuality, but I agree with you that science is pointing to that nature is bisexual or maybe more precise...sexual period. But there definitely is evidence for heterosexuality and homosexuality, so Buddah1's topic is incorrect. I think maybe he worded it that way to get people here.

 

[MetaKron]

Jaylee, there are really good reasons that your moral disagreement should not be taken into account and should have no force of law to back it.

"Homosexual" means "same gender." Two men who have sex with each other are having homosexual sex. Two men who bond emotionally have a homosexual bond. There are all sorts of combinations. One thing that gets me is the idea that some people have that one is homosexual or a "faggot" or "gay" if he has sex with 99 women and one man. It's the kind of dysfunctional thinking that if two labels apply, the one that makes the labeled person look worse is the one that is used, not the one that is more likely to be accurate. This kind of labelling is the kind that is used by a bully and a moron, so I don't expect to see smart people using it.

 

[Buddha1]

Sorry folks, I'm going to be out in the nature, trekking for a week. So I will not be able to reply to your posts. I can see that you guys are posting a lot of mispropaganda, so I might have to clear a lot of myths when I come back.

I'll just make a quick assessment since my last post.

I'm impressed by efforts of jaylee to be objective, though I think he has way to go. I think he and others are again misleading this discussion by again and again claiming that sex between males and females for reproduction is 'heterosexuality', when I have already proven that it is not so.

It is not valid to go on repeating a statement already proven wrong, unless you can counter my points and show me how they are not valid. If you can't do that, quit claiming that there is evidence of heterosexuality or bisexuality in nature.

I think we should leave the discussion about whether there is homosexuality (sic) in nature or whether heterosexuality is natural for humans or whether there is any proof of heterosexuality in societies other than modern west, to other threads. In order to avoid messing up this important issue, I'd like to concentrate on whether there is or there is not any evidence of heterosexuality in nature. And so far there has been none.

It would also make a good discussion on how much should we let science change our lives, and whether homosexuality is morally good or not (but in a different thread when I come back), especially now that I trust Jaylee to be objective. I hope he would not let me down.

 

[jayleew]

Here's my answer again......

If you are a heterosexual its either a rare occurrence/ disability or a social disorder.

Explanation: I have already said in my first post that an extreme minority of males (1 in 50?) may be naturally inclined to bond intimately with women in a sexual relationship, accompanied by a distaste for males. However, such males are not the typical males, and in fact represent a different gender altogether. These males are more likely to be transgendered or meterosexuals than straight (meaning masculine not heterosexual). But even this is not heterosexuality.

The modern concept of heterosexuality (note that there was no such concept before the 20th century; there is still no such concept outside modern west) has the following important components:
- a mixed gender society
- desire to bond with women (as friends and as lovers)
- desire to have sex with women.
- An inability to bond with men (as friends and as lovers)
- An inability to have sex with men.

In addition there are two extremely important aspects of the heterosexual identity:
(i) that it is supposed to be a majority/ universal phenomenon.
(ii) that it is supposed to be a superior/ alpha-male/ masculine trait.

Unless all of the above criteria are met, the activity cannot be said to be heterosexual.

If the human male is straight and is still truly heterosexual (i.e., not just as an identity), which is a rare happening, then it points to a social disorder, where the person's ability to bond sexually with men has been lost or mutilated.

It could be a reversible disorder or a deep rooted one. E.g., It's been shown that if a natural trait is suppressed for long in a population, or it is forced to rely on a particular trait for long enough, at least some of the population will start showing biological changes. And at least some people will undergo important internal changes. E.g., some male elephants in a particular African population stopped growing teeth within a century when they were poached relentlessly for their teeth. This is supposed to be a biological defensive mechanism. Although this is a natural response to an unnatural hostility, it does make the outcome unnatural --- because it tampers with the natural order of things, it depletes and harms the nature making it less capable.

And I may add, that in my work experience of 10 years and even greater life-experience, I have met some guys (about 1 in 30) who vehemently claim that they have no sexual attraction for men. But I have not met any man who inspite of making that claim, doesn't melt at the first chance to have sex with an attractive man. The fun part is that those who are most vocal in their denial of such feelings turn out to be more desperate and straightforward for such sexual contacts.

Sigmon Freud would roll over in his grave if he heard you talk such things..

Hmmm...so what you are saying is that you believe heterosexuality is a pressure on society and your evidence is that away from the Western World, people "melt at the first chance to have sex with an attractive man." This is not evidence. How do we know that it is the Eastern world that has the bad society influence, and they are the freaks of nature? You are not in the Western world, but I hope you understand that the odds of a guy beating the crap out of a homosexual if the opprotunity presents itself are very high. Heterosexuals see a naked beautiful male body as a nasty thing. Beautiful, but not in the way we view an equally beautiful female body.

Let me tell you a story about me. When I was a preteen a experimented with homosexuality with my male friends. But, it wasn't because I liked their bodies or their anatomy or because I loved them so much. No, instead, I like the way I felt having sex. The sexual sensations that are found in nature will take a dog and make him perform unnatural things with one's leg. I was sexual (which science points to in nature) when I was young, neither bi, nor hetero, nor homo. I was merely sexual. I was not pressured in any way to not be homosexual, nor heterosexual. No one knew about what I did in closets with friends. I grew up, and I naturally became enthralled with the female body. The curves and smoothness of their skin. Their minds were gentle and sweet. I bond with men as a playmate and competitor. I bond with women in a different way. I have a different relationship with men and women. With women, I tend to have more intimate relationships (only one is sexual, but the others are still intimate and flirtatious). You say that I am a phenomenon?

If the human male is straight and is still truly heterosexual (i.e., not just as an identity), which is a rare happening, then it points to a social disorder, where the person's ability to bond sexually with men has been lost or mutilated.

I am a social disorder? I am among many in the Western world! The odds of a heterosexual in the Western world are very high. So maybe it is the Eastern World that are a distortion of nature due to social influences.

Your data that I am a rare happening is wrong. What are the statistics of truly heterosexual men, such as myself, in the whole world?

An inability to bond with men (as friends and as lovers)

This trait of a heterosexual is incorrect. You are combining two different bonds into one. A person can have two different types of bonds, depending on gender. A male-female bond is generally flirtatious. You won't see that happening in a male-male bond. We become alpha-male masculine around each other...we are always competetive. I can feel my testosterone kick in around men, and I want to challenge them in a playful way. Women make me weak at the knees.

Buddah1, your data of the Eastern world does not reflect the data of the America or the world. The society you are in has been cultured to remove the male identity. It happens in this society, but it is the phenomenon, just as we see in nature.

And I may add, that in my work experience of 10 years and even greater life-experience, I have met some guys (about 1 in 30) who vehemently claim that they have no sexual attraction for men. But I have not met any man who inspite of making that claim, doesn't melt at the first chance to have sex with an attractive man. The fun part is that those who are most vocal in their denial of such feelings turn out to be more desperate and straightforward for such sexual contacts.

Yes, your data is corrupted since it comes from one society (that could be tainted).
My data of the same test shows the exact opposite of your findings, but mine could be equally tainted.

Furthermore, does anatomy not prove that every species is intended to be heterosexual in nature? You cannot tell me that a man putting his member in another man is as pleasurable as entering a woman. If it were natural for homosexual intercourse, the anal cavity would secrete lubricant. A male would have to unnaturally use a lubrication of the pain would be excruciating!

In every mammal species, procreation is accomplished through the same fashion. But, we mammals are sexual beings, so we will work with what we got no matter the gender or species, but we prefer female relations. Which makes the animal world bisexual. By nature humans are sexual. Look at prisons for an example. A straight man with enough sexual desire will work with what he's got, and through the feel-good drug that orgasms produce, may associate the anal cavity with the act of sex. However, in a mixed-gender society, males are naturally heterosexual unless the homosexual behavior is cultured.

 

[Darkman]

'Then why do your numbers keep increasing?'

Anonymity. The increasing population of the Earth means that the singular identity of each person decreases, and responsibility diminishes (IMO).

 

[Padmora]

male-female sex for reproduction is not heterosexual activity.

Yes, it is. We know that hetersexual sex is needed for procreation. Animals don't know this. The people who lived in old primitive cultures didn't know it either. They need/needed to have a heterosexual drive to be able to reproduct.

Male-female relationships should be limited only to procreation. Casual male-female relationships or love affairs should be made entirely illegal.

You say that male-female relationships should be banned because there's no proof of heterosexuality in nature (which I don't agree with). Well, in another post you state that there isn't any homosexuality either in nature. Why should then only male-female relationships be made illegal, why not also male-male relationships?

But you're ignoring my point that male-female sex is not heterosexuality. Opposite sex animals mate to reproduce --- not for fun, certainly not for bonding or casual sex. These instincts are reserved mostly for the same-sex.

And how do you know when animals have more "fun"??? You are "reading" your own hopes and feelings into their behavior.

 

[Buddha1]

Sorry, I’ve been away for a long time. My computer is still out of order.

Therefore I’ll just post this interesting bit of information I encountered. The rest of my post at my earliest convenience.

I went on a mountain trek.

I was surprised to hear from my horseman that his horse always walks by the mare wherever she went. They were kind of inseperable. And this was pretty much the story of the rest of the horses. It really seemed that animals after all are heterosexual, if they have such natural intimacy with each other. Till the horseman gave me this further bit of information.

These male horses have to be trained from their youth in order to make them so close to female horses. Initially, the male horse did not want to go near the female horse. He even refused to eat when forced into a room with her. But the trainers forced the horse for months, till he got used to it and developed a close bond with her. This is more or less the story of all the horse couples.

On the other hand, the bond between two male horses is natural and spontaneous. A horse will not care about his life and fight back if, say, someone beats up his partner. For this reason male bonds are considered a menace, and horses forced to bond with females. They prevent male horses from developing intimacy – and never put them together.

Isn’t it what they do with humans. Put pressure on men and train them to bond with women. Take away all other avenues from them.

 

[caffeine_fubar]

I think sex in general is a normal instinct for all animals and anything in nature, but there is no true sexuality defined. Its sort of obvious when you see male deer and bull mating...

 

[Buddha1]

So youre saying that in these cases of same sex pairing, that the animals involved have not and will not engage in heterosexual mating at some point in time? That they are distinctly unmoved in any way to engage the opposite sex? or that they can and will resist the opposite sex when its mating season? I doubt that.

It seems to me once again, that in nature, animals are not shy to form relationships sexual or otherwise with either sex in the species. I dont think you can call the way animals behave heterosexual or homosexual anyways. Those are definately human concepts. As far as sex in the animal world go its like someone above said, its dictated by instinct and procreative drive, not by choice.

Male animals may have procreative sex with females, but the fact remains that as far as bonding goes animals go only for same-sex as has been proved by various recent researches.
Animals may purely be guided by instincts; however, their instincts guide them to bond only with same-sex, as proved by these studies, although I’d not call this ‘homosexuality’ as the western civilisation knows it.

So if this thread was intended to argue for or against any kind of relationship, it would seems its pointless and moot. Same sex, opposite sex, and both sex relationships have, do and will continue to exist in this world. The only thing there is to do about any of it is to get a grip,get used to it.. and learn to get along.

This thread is intended to show that the concept of ‘heterosexuality’ (esp. as a majoritarian/ straight/ manly characteristic) is unnatural. So far no one has proved it wrong. It occurs amongst human beings only in modern, urbanised, western(ised) societies, only because individuals in such societies are pressurized, manipulated and brain-washed from the beginning to be heterosexual.

In fact this pressure has been in place for so long that some men have developed biological changes that although make them compatible with women, also makes them lesser-men. These true ‘heterosexuals’ are anti-men, not very respectful of nature and like to be ruled by women. Furthermore, they are incapable of bonding with men.

Scientists have found that society through force can alter the biological make-up of people when it binds them to particular life-styles which are often contrary to their nature. E.g., Jews descending from European ancestors have developed a certain disease because their ancestors were forced into certain blue-collar professions for generations, causing genetic changes in them (I don’t have the details, maybe some of you do!).

 

[Buddha1]

The subject is as the title states, "There is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature." Which, you have stated what nonsense it is.

Stated.....not proved!

Due to the lack of homosexual evidence, heterosexuality was assumed.

The use of western word ‘homosexual’ is a perfect way to distort and misrepresent the truth about male sexuality and masculinity.

Anyways, there has never been any dearth of male bonding and intimacy in the wild. If scientists couldn’t see it half of the time it was because of their own biases, myths and foolishness.

E.g. for most scientists male sexual bonds = homosexuality = anal intercourse. And they consider only anal intercourse as a proof of male bonds. There is not likely to be a lot of that going on in the wild.
However, scientists are as much guilty of suppression of truth as of ignorance. For there has been a sea of evidence (and this willful suppression is documented now!) even within the myopic ‘homosexual’ view of male bonds taken by the scientists. There has been a systematic suppression of evidences. In fact the complex strategy adopted by the society to suppress evidences of male bonding whether amongst animals or human beings, can be a separate field of study on its own.

I remember an old programme on discovery channel where they showed two male raccoons that were just inseparable. They captured one of them and put it into a cage. The other raccoon risked his life and stayed outside the cage all night. The scientist couldn’t for the life of them understand this behaviour, but did not once suspect a romantic bond because the two had not indulged in anal intercourse.

I would have never thought that we would need to look at animals to determine how humans should act.

The well-known Christian disdain of nature.

Well, as far as marriage goes, three percent of mammals are monogomous.

Now that’s laughable. To talk of wedded animals is just as silly as to talk of ‘gay’ or ‘heterosexual’ animals. These are purely human concepts ----- nothing to do with animals.

There was a good point that came up in this forum. That it cannot be proven at this time that nature is either heterosexual or homosexual.

Don’t try to lead away from the basic question. We are not talking about ‘homosexuality’. We are talking about heterosexuality and nature.

...we can't get into the mind of the animal. We can only observe behavior. The research on bonobos was particularly interesting (indicating that the bonobos "got horny" for many reasons). The source is biased, so just scroll down to the observations on bonobos entitled, "Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior" His observations are compelling, but inconclusive to the topic.

Animals don’t have ulterior motives. It’s our own society which is eager to discredit sexual bonds between males and tries to find explanations for simple acts driven by sexual attraction amongst animals.

It’s really amazing the lengths to which the scientists go to accomplish this. One the one ‘hand’ they term a purely procreative activity between male and female with no evidence of bonding or physical attraction as ‘love’. On the other hand they try to find all sorts of ‘explanations’ for clear cut acts of bonding and physical attraction between same-sex. It is clear that they are keen on heterosexualising the wild-life.

The heterosexual society usually follows the following tactics to negate evidences of sexual need between males (whether in humans or animals):

- destroy them; failing which,

- deny/ not acknowledge them; failing which

- ignore them, failing which,

- fraternise or create into non-sexual platonic bonds, failing which,

- homosexualise/ feminise/ minoritise them (where the participants were shown as not so manly and deviant), failing which,

- belittle them (as being unimportant -- probably there weren't girls around)

The author of “explaining seemingly homosexual animal behaviour” is trying the last strategy, when everything else has failed. But really, how long can you run away from the truth.

...I am drawn to a conclusion based on the evidence given by both sides, that animals are driven by sexual impulses.

Well you may decide to close your eyes and bury your head in the sand, like the ostrich --- but that won’t alter the truth.

Certainly animals are driven by impulses, but their impulses don’t drive them towards heterosexuality. They do care about gender. They only approach females when they need to procreate (and vice versa for females). Just look at the immense problem faced by zoo-keepers all over the world in forcing males to mate with females. There is a lot of documentation of this problem. They expect these poor animals to form heterosexual bonds, because they sincerely believe that is a natural way to be. But they put off the animals so much that they just refuse to mate. It’s a common problem.

The circumstances in which the animal is in can influence its sexual desire, which can lead to sex, regardless of gender. This would explalin why a dog, when excited in some way, will want to have sex (even with humans). This article explains that the stimulation of the dog from the scent of a female, or social stimulation will trigger unusual sexual behavior (even with cats).

O.K. it’s time now to address your ‘dog’ theory. It’s only a rare dog that becomes so excited that he is ready to have sex with other species. By no means is it a universal dog/ animal behaviour. This trait is found in humans too, and although rare is not unnatural. But this sex is never followed by bonding. The real sexual drive of a living being is reflected in the gender it prefers to bond with.

It would seem that there is more evidence that the animal kingdom is bisexual and sexually driven by instinct and evolution than any claim for heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Let’s forget about bisexuality and homosexuality for now. Let’s just say that there is no evidence of heterosexuality.

Still, you are stretching the argument to go so far as to say there is no evidence of heterosexuality, because heterosexuality is the predominant observational evidence that we have encountered.

If you view the world wearing red spectacles the world would look red to you. No one has been able to provide one evidence out of this ‘predominant observational’ evidences.

Even those that argue pro-homosexuality, acknowledge that homosexualilty is a phenomenon and not the normal behavior. There has yet much to be explained away that is perceived to be heterosexual behavior. For now, it is assumed.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are really both two sides of the same coin. Both represent the same gender of males. Both are based on the same skewed (modern) western worldview. They both need an unnatural mixed/heterosexual society to exist. Without the heterosexualisation of the society there would be no homosexuality.

Science, in its search for the unexplainable, is chaotic and causes strife and division in its own current beliefs and this is another example of it. I am against changing too fast, our beliefs, before they are tried and true. If we lived our lives by the whim of evidence, we would think the world is flat one day and round another. Science fanatics look to change to world in one day because they think they find conclusive evidence, which later studies prove otherwise.

Of course you don’t need science to prove that male-bonding is a natural part of being a man. Unless you live in such an artificial, unnatural society that you can’t figure out your own nature.

 

[Buddha1]

Heterosexuality is most certainly unnatural.
My priest told me so, a while ago, right before he introduced me to the pleasures of anal sex, at the age of seven.
I didn’t believe him at the time and I thought about what he had told me, while gasping for air and trying to keep from yelling too loud from his large member stretching my anal cavity into ‘natural’ proportions.

What can be more natural than an erect penis slamming, over and over again, into the exposed ass of a bent over love puppet, right before he licks it clean and tastes what he had for breakfast?

The mere thought of a vagina and all those liquids and shades of pink makes me gag.

……ranting of a hurt pussy worshipper.

But jokes apart, homosexuals and true heterosexuals have a lot in common. And one thing is their preoccupation with sexual intercourse as the main form of sexual fulfillment. And in the case of male-male sex it has to be anal intercourse.

However, a typical straight man does not think much of penetrative sex (stereotypes apart!). He has penetrative sex only with women (which if things were left to nature, is not often!) and that is all he needs from women as far as sex is concerned. With a man he seldom thinks about anal-sex. Any culture which gives place to straight man’s sexual need for another man knows this well. E.g. ancient Greeks looked down upon anal-sex, and the common form of sexual activity between two straight men was rubbing genitalia and mutual masturbation. True straight men even in the modern world show this preference. It’s something biological.

 

[Buddha1]

Why does the originator of this thread wish to impose his own agenda into accepted human realationships?

Oh and you think nothing of your ‘accepted human relationships’ being imposed on the unwilling but unaware majority, just to please a few.

Apart from homosexuality, which is actually legal and accepted in most countries...

The true place of masculine bonds is not in ‘queer’ homosexual alternate spaces. It belongs in the mainstream. Anything less is short-changing an important masculine trait.

...there still is plenty of male bonding going on. Just think of army, team sports (players and spectators), team players in business and proffessions, social drinkers, gamblers and groups of layabouts; it's never really stopped.

Really! American men are scared to even touch each other, especially in public. What kind of serious bonding can you imagine in such a hostile and heterosexualised environment?..... where men have no spaces left for themselves. Not even their most personal environs like the changing rooms. Not even the most macho of places – like the army, sports or the gym. Everything is mixed gender, heterosexual with pressures of dating and to keep away from men.

I’ll two examples to highlight this. A programme on discovery channel on traditional oil wrestling between macho men comments in amazement at the athletic practice of putting one’s hands inside the (under)pants of the rival to get a grip. The commentator exclaims: American men will never imagine doing that.

In another example, in an episode of ‘the lonely planet’ a American guy in an oriental land is surprised to see young men hanging out with each other – showing a lot of physical closeness – like sitting hand-in-hand, or in each other’s lap and stuff like that. He is totally zapped and comments --- don’t you guys have girlfriends? One of the guys mischievously replies pinching the face of his friend: “He is my girlfriend!” That was more than the American could take. So much for American male-bonding.

...most sane people wish that they Would all fuck off and live on their own island somewhere and leave all the wimpy, hetero, cary, shary guys to all the pussy.

Most sane people (it naturally excludes those driven by organised religion or heterosexual ideology) will wish that the heterosexuals will stop tampering with the natural way of being. Why don’t heterosexuals go and live in a far off island. Afterall, it’s they who are living an artificial lifestyle.