beyondtimeandspace said:
Which is why, after having read many posts by you and rolling my eyes in amusement and the silliness of your arguments, this will be the only post I have made, and will make in response.
You are a layman beyondtimeandspace and you can continue to hold any biased opinion that you may have. I'm speaking from the strength of putting ten years of my prime life into understanding male gender and sexuality. You may accuse me of having motives or taints or being biased, because what I"ve found does not suit how the society has raised you, but unless you can prove your standpoint with evidences, you will be just stating your own opinion, which cannot be said about me. Also, the same thing that you say about me can also apply to you --- you could also have a skewed view of this world because of who you are.
And the fact that you just want to present your veiws and run away, fearing a rebuttal........
beyondtimeandspace said:
You've certainly said lots, talked about a lot of things that happen and that go on. There are things you say that are true, but true in ways that you don't think about. The problem is, you've taken what's true, and applied a spin on them that doesn't actually necessarily result from the data that you've presented. In other words, you've interpreted the information, the very spcifically selected data, in a very subjective way.
Unless you take up specific cases and show me how my interpretations are not valid, I or any neutral person is not likely to take you seriously. I have said that over and over again, that if someone can show me or my analysis to be wrong, I will gladly change my views. You see, I am in search of truth, and if nothing else, people on this board will know me for sincerely.
To your credit, you are amongst the few people opposing me who has not only acknowedlged that I have been giving evidences all along, but the fact that they are true. Most of my opposition is just scared stiff to touch the evidences --- even when they go on opposing the issue for pages on end.
beyondtimeandspace said:
Guess what. I'm heterosexual, not homosexual. I was not pressured into heterosexuality, I simply am, like the majority of males on this planet. I have not had sex, and I am 22 years old. I have planned, and intended and continue to intend that my first sexual partner be had in marriage. I would be embarrassed and upset if I were put in an awkward situation involving sexuality, I would also be hurt if ever taken advantage of sexually.
I don't know what you mean by heterosexuality. If you mean you like women sexually, well so do I. But I don't think the fact alone makes someone heterosexual. If you mean that you look forward to marriage or are comfortable letting a woman into your life, well I am not.
Heterosexual is as artificial a construct as homosexuality.
Also, to your credit, you don't seem to be lying about your sexuality --- and you're amongst the few honest ones who are more likely to be telling the truth rather than lying. Because for one thing you are not using this statement as a power assertion.
But you must understand that your personal feelings, even if they are honest prove nothing. And apart from that no one really cares here who you want to sleep with. At least I don't.
In my observation of the rare person who is exclusively into women, like you I suppose (though I can never be sure!) is more likely than not to have a strong feminine element in him, which is against the spirit of the word straight, as non-heterosexual societies see it.
beyondtimeandspace said:
I was born and raised in Canada, which is entirely part of "Western Civilization" and culture. I can tell you that the majority of my very good male friends would feel the same way I do about sexuality, and would also hold the same views that I hold concerning heterosexuality (or very similar to my own views).
And how can you tell that the majority of your good male friends would feel the same way? Many of them may like to think that is how they feel, and yet many others will be consciously hiding their feelings. You have to understand that you live in a society which is very hostile to masculine same-sex bonds (and supporting homosexuality adds to that hostility).
The things are not very different here in my own country. When I was in the university I too exaggerated my sexual interests in women much more than they actually were. I too slept with women, I couldn't care less about. And my friends would think of me as a die-hard (what you'd call) 'heterosexual'. And after I started working on 'masculinlity' I realised how much pressure exists on men. Once I became couscious about gender and sexuality I found out that young men that I live with, who appear so 'heterosexual' from outside, harbour and struggle with same-sex feelings within them. Especially the masculine and macho ones.
What men are really and what they show from outside are often two opposite things! But truly heterosexual women, homosexuals and true heterosexuals are likely to take men at their face value because that's how they see the world. The three of them put together only constitute a small minority.
beyondtimeandspace said:
You've misunderstood the activities of heterosexual males in western civilization as being due to the fact that it's a "heterosexual" society, when actually it has more to do with the publicity of sex and sexuality more than it does with heterosexuality. It also has a lot to do with discipline, and what parents allow their kids to get away with growing up.
If you can just answer one thing to my satisfaction, I'll change all my views:
Why are there such extreme pressures on men to be heterosexual, if indeed it is so natural for men?
corollary questions: Why are men given such extreme powers when they prove their 'heterosexuality', if men would anyways do it? Why is sex with women considered to be the sole proof of 'manhood', if it is something that men enjoy doing?
beyondtimeandspace said:
It also has a lot to do with discipline, and what parents allow their kids to get away with growing up.
So you agree that discipline -- that is artificial environment and pressures are an important factor in making men heterosexual? But you're supporting it.
Does it tell us about where you're coming from?
beyondtimeandspace said:
You've interpreted the sets of data as having specific reference to heterosexuality, when actually there are a whole host of other reasons those sets of data exist. Why did you direct them to heterosexuality? I can only assume it has something to do with your own sexuality. Not because I think you have some kind of agenda, but because how we are is how we think. Thus, you interpreted the data according to your own mental framework, which must surely arise from the kind of person you are. And if the data concerns sexuality, you'll interpret it and understand it with respect to your own.
If you could analyse the evidences I presented instead of analysing me, you would have had more success convincing me.
My answer to your point is that had I been a homosexual, and if it were only about me, I would gladly have joined the fledgling 'gay' movement in my society. Why do I need to fight against such odds here? I have literally have had heated and hostile arguments with homosexuals --- both in my country and in forums such as these. And these arguments are much more heated than it ever gets with the so-called heterosexuals.
And although, yes a lot of what I know I found out through my own personal experiences, my own personality was important just to that extent --- that it gave me the key to the real world behind the forced heteroseuxal facade.
I found out that the majority of men were like me, and not like the heteroseuxal image I was projecting. That was when I figured there was something immensely wrong and discovered this huge consipiracy against men.
beyondtimeandspace said:
Concerning animals, I don't know where you get the idea that gender roles don't exist. Particularly that bit about there being no nuleic family (except in very specific and rare cases). You mention birds. Certainly! Penguins being one kind of bird that has the father and mother care for its infant(s). How about Elephants? Girraffs? Deer? However, how many different examples one can think of is irrelivant. The fact is, there are many different social structures in the animal kingdom, the nucleic family being one of them. I ask you this, why, just because few animals have such a family structure, should we think of humans as being abnormal in operating in this way? Why could we not consider humans as simply being one of those species that works this way? Just as some species work in colonies, others only the female raises the offspring, while even others the offspring are completely left to fend for themselves (Sea Turtles, for example)
.
a.) I have not merely said that nucleic families don't exist. Leave alone nucleic families, opposite-sex sexual bonds don't exist in nature (except in birds and a few others). That is a big thing in itself --- and a strong case against heterosexuality. And that opposite-sex bonds don't exist (almost) at all amongst the mammals.
b.) Add to it the fact that mammals have from 90% - 100% (depending on the species) incidences of same-sex activities. And a lot of it is in the form of 'masculine' sexual bonds between males --- which are many a times, if not always, life-long.
c.) Emotional bonds, long term or short term is something which is completely unheard of between male and female mammals (o.k. there are rare cases in each species). Male-female sex is limited only to what is required for procreation. The 'couples' often don't meet again, ever. Not all males have sex with females in their lifetime. And those who do it only do it in the latter half of their life. Males have sex with females, like once in a year. And most males have it only a couple of times in their lifetime. You can yourself compare the two --- male-female and male-male sexual needs amongst mammals.
d.) It is the same with Giraffes, elephants and deers. About 94% of Giraffes have been found to form same-sex sexual bonds (and no male-female bonds --- sexual or otherwise!). Elephants are 'notorious' for same-sex bonds, and in their life span of about 40 years approach females only when they are about 35 years (the last data may not be exactly correct, but is near it, this is what they said on the discovery channel!).
e.) humans are mammals too. And if only as an hypotheses, we were to believe that humans are basically different from other mammals, including primates, then how do you explain that the human society has created such an intricate mechanism of extreme pressures (including extreme punishments and rewards) to prop up both marriage and heterosexuality.
I have already shown how mammals can also be made 'heterosexual' by pressurising them (see the example of domiciled horses). Obviously the same is happening with the humans. Why do you think it is otherwise?
All the above are based on accepted scientific reports.
beyondtimeandspace said:
As I said, you interpret the data according to your own mental framework, just like anyone else. However, this most certainly doesn't make you right, and I will continue to be amused by your, in my opinion, rediculous spin on the world.
Please re-interpreet the data according to your mental framework? No matter how you try, it is difficult to justify heteroseuxality through nature.
Like I said, being a layman, you can choose to believe in what suits you. Especially, because just by my saying so (no matter how much I back it with evidence), the society is not going to change. But subconsciously it will trouble you --- again and again, that this world as you know it, is a lie. And you're adding to that lie, by refusing to back the truth.
