Heterosexuality is unnatural

[Padmora]

Amongst the Chimpanzees the males bond sexually with each other which makes them immensely powerful and the stronger gender of the species. The females amongst Chimpanzees fail to bond so meaningfully.

Amongst Bonobos on the other hand, for some reason, while males have frequent sex with each other, they fail to bond sexually. While sexual bonds amongst the females are pretty strong. This has made females so strong and males so weak that the females rule over the males. So much so that the status of a male in the Bonobo society is dependant upon the status of the female he is related to (as a son of course, there is no male-female sexual bond amongst bonobos). The male does not have an identity of his own.

I don't understand why you always assume that every kind of bonding is the same as sexual bonding? There are other kinds of bonding e.g. friendship.

 

[Padmora]

As a woman myself I will say that it's not easy for a woman in the Western world to find a man with whom you can be "only" friends with. In real life all my best friends are females. When I get to know a man he always assumes that I want to have sex with him and that makes friendship impossible whether I say yes or no.

I have however male friends on the net. And I find this very rewarding. If I e.g. have a problem and discuss it with my female friends we seem often only to talk in circles without getting to any solution. When I talk about it with a man he often gives a whole new prospect to the problem and makes it easier to solve. I guess it's due to the fact that men and women think with different parts of their brains.

 

[devils_reject]

Well one day at the park a male dog was humping my male puppy dog, I think its a form of expression of love but the owner said it was a dominant technique. Dominant technique my ass

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Well one day at the park a male dog was humping my male puppy dog, I think its a form of expression of love but the owner said it was a dominant technique. Dominant technique my ass

*************
M*W: I thought that as well about my 5-year-old Lab who is definitely the alpha dog in my house. My daughter got a beautiful chocolate lab who is so loving and way too big, he hasn't even grown into all his skin! Well my dog, Duchy, started humping Mr. Brown when he grew bigger than her. She had been spayed five years ago, so there was no estrual influence. I don't think it was true love or anything, it was that he got bigger than her and it intimidated Duchy's position in the family. I love my dogs and all, but Mr. Brown (Charles Bailey Brown) is the first dog I've ever given thought to running away with.

 

[Buddha1]

You exist, therefore heterosexuality exists in nature.

How can you be so sure that my father does not like men or that he could not or would not have had a relationship with a man or that he did not marry under social pressure........

Or , how about that most of my friends have gotten married to people of the opposute sex, therefore heterosexuality exists in nature.

That's cool. Put a gun on people and tell them to wear a star. And then say "see people like wearing stars because so many of them are wearing them!".

Or that my dog gets excited only when around nice young male labradors, seeing as shes a bitch. I guess she's a confused lesbian, right?

I don't know about your dog (bitch). May be she is ready to procreate. I don't suspect she would want sex with a male unless she wants a baby.

In any case I can't speak about female sexuality with the authority that I can talk about male gender and sexuality. I have very superficial information about female gender and sexuality. But whatever discussion I have had with women on sexual desire between females points to the fact that it is quite a universal concept. But I am not aware about the kinds of pressures they feel to suppress them and how they deal with these pressures.

 

[Buddha1]

As a woman myself .......

I had no idea that I was discussing with a woman. A heterosexual woman at that. It changes everything. It will be very difficult for you to understand many things that I'm saying here. (I should probably make more efforts to explain things!).

It is one thing to discuss straight male gender and sexuality with heterosexual/ homosexual males, even if they don't understand it completely they have gone through a lot of these pressures themselves. But women! Women have no idea about what goes on inside straight men. They see only what is shown to them. Most of the time they sincerely believe the outer pretensions of straight men are their real selves. E.g. it is hard for them to believe that a macho man who shows sexual interest in them may be acting out of social pressures.

But things take an entirely different shape with heterosexual women. Heterosexual women are the biggest and the ultimate beneficiaries of heterosexualisation. They derive immense powers in a heterosexual society, helped by heterosexual men. They have a deep vested interest in the heterosexual society. They are the most aggressive and fierce in putting pressures on straight men to be heterosexual. They are the most vocal in putting down a man as 'homosexual' the moment they see an indication of eroticism between males. It is primarily because of their presence in a mixed-gender setting that male-male sexual bonds are isolated out of the mainstream into a non-straight space.

And therefore it will be an extra pleasure for me to discuss these things with you -- although my primary target audience is straight men.

 

[Buddha1]

Well, I don't see any difference there from a heterosexual society. Men go out to drink beers and watch football with their male pals. The same goes for women, they have female friends for friendships. But when it comes to love and sex men seek out women and vice versa.

In my opinion you seem to be unable to see the difference between friendship and love.

There is a huge difference between a heterosexual and a traditional society.

But let's first talk about friendship and love.

Friendship is possible without love/ sexual attraction. But such a friendship is not likely to be very deep. Neither is the emotional bond very strong. One is not likely to give it much importance in life. Most deep friendships are actually platonic love affairs though they may be one-sided and unacknowledged.

However, love without friendship cannot exist for long. It'll last as long as the sexual novelty lasts. It is the combination of friendship and love that makes a relationship really strong, committed and longlasting.

In a heterosexual society men are scared to hold each other's hands. How deep can you expect their friendships to be? The much hyped about male-bonding in the west is limited to doing certain activities together. But even that is now a marginalised activity and you have to especially organise a male-bonding session once in a blue moon.

Interestingly, on a discussion on the relationship between sports, male-bonding and heterosexuality on sciforums, an interesting point came up (by a die-hard heterosexual) that men who are into male-bonding and go to watch sports and drink beer together actually nurture a hidden sexual desire for other men.

I might also add aquote from the well known heterosexual Buddhist scholar and author, the late Alan Watts:

“If they (young and unrealised men who desire men, who are macho and ultra masculine, and who constitute the hard core of our military-industrial-police-mafia-combine) would go **** each other (and I use that word in its most positive and appreciative sense) the world would be vastly improved. They make it with women only to brag about it, but are actually far happier in the barracks than in boudiors. This is, perhaps, the real meaning of “make love, not war". We may be destroying ourselves through the repression of male-male bonds.”

As far as females are concerned, I'm can't talk about them because there is no way I can get the inside information, and I'm not wont to taking your word for it.

But when it comes to love and sex men seek out women and vice versa.

What other options has the society left them with?

 

[Buddha1]

That men and women are different is true. But that doesn't mean that they can't be made for each other, because one could also say that opposites attract.

Opposites do attract. But the attraction is short-lived. And most of it is curiosity. The rest is hardcore heterosexual propaganda.

There was a study sometime back in the west which showed that contrary to popular notion, people seek their 'likes' when they seek romantic partners. It claimed that likes attract likes (though it did not dare to refer about same-gender bonds).

Men and women cannot stay together without the elaborate social support system. It’s been amply proved by the heterosexual society where, as the pressure to get married loosens, more and more women end up raising children alone as single mothers.

Killing of all avenues of male-male love bonds is a part of this social support system to prop up male-female bonds – whether heterosexual or not.

You say that men and women have sex problems and troubles getting orgasms when they are together, but would they do better with their own sexes? I don't think that would be the case for the majority.

You don’t know about the majority unless you let them try.

Even though gay sex is not the true representative of masculine male-male sex, how many sex clinics do you know that cater to gay men or women.

There is no account of any man having sex problems with his male lover in the ancient Greece.

You also state that men have troubles with long-term commitments and that's true. But that's not just the case when they are together with a woman, it's the same when they are romantically involved with another man.

How many straight men do you know who are romantically involved with another man? It’s not possible in a heterosexual society.

Most homosexual men are temperamentally promiscuous. That rules out the possibility of long-term commitments in gay relationships.

But as far as straight men are concerned, when they do get into a secret and suppressed relationship with another men, they do show immense amount of loyalty and commitment --- even when they don’t want to acknowledge the sexual chemistry between them.

The history is full of legends of deep and life-long relationships between men whenever the society allowed such relationships. E.g. Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Alexander and Hephaistion, Antonius and Hadrian. In fact it was a common practice in ancient Greece or with the Samurai warriors. The early European history is destroyed and/ or heterosexualised so we don’t know much about it.

Widespread life-long committed love bonds between males have also been reported in the wild. E.g. amongst bottleneck dolphins, Giraffes, elephants, Sheep and Chimpanzees (please refer to the research by Bruce Bagemihl. I have already mentioned about the two raccoons showed by the discovery channel. No such bonds have been witnessed between male and female. In rare cases where the male spends some time with the female in the wild is to help bring up the children in the times of adversity – but for extremely short durations.

It’s like this Straight men are promiscuous with the object of their secondary sexual interest --- i.e. women. They want women just for sex, have preference for feminine women, and are not too choosy regarding which women they want to sleep with. But with men, straight men tend to be very choosy, emotionally involved and likely to commit themselves.

Heterosexual men on the other hand tend to form emotional and committed bonds with women. But they prefer submissive relationships with masculine aggressive women.

Homosexual men don’t seem to prefer committed love relationships at all.

 

[Buddha1]

I will agree with you after considering the evidence and my own experience that there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature, but only evidence for sexuality.

I have already discussed as a reply to your earlier such conclusion, as to how this is not so. When I’m finished with this discussion I’d like to take up the issue of homosexuality in nature.

You are right that the culture determines sexual preference in society.

I’d like to clarify that statement. Your statement suggests that if the society gives the right kind of environment men will start preferring women for long term relationships.

My analysis of male gender and sexuality does not corroborate this. Men will only act and pretend that they prefer women. Most will not actually prefer women. They will have heterosexual relationships but they will lead stressful lives (even if they get used to a pretentious life) and a significant part of their early life will be spent on trying to reign in their sexual need for men.

Social pressure does determine sexual preference, but I couldn't care less. The society I live in happens to encourage heterosexuality, and I love it!

If you are OK with a society knowing fully well that it unfairly supports heterosexuality while penalising others ….. just because it suits you ….. what moral right do you have to talk about morality?

So, should we seperate people into homosexual, heterosexual, and natural societies for the good of the world? That seems to be the most moral decision, but my belief in Jesus Christ says otherwise. What do you think?

Can you first clarify what separating people into homosexual, heterosexual and natural society means? And how is it going to solve problems?

That seems to be the most moral decision, but my belief in Jesus Christ says otherwise. What do you think?

You know, Jesus Christ is one of the ‘gods’ that I worship daily --- along with Buddha. But as far as I’m concerned, one can never access Jesus unless one breaks free from organised religion. You don’t really care for Jesus. You care for what Christianity has taught you eversince you were a child. You care because you grew up with it. It is your identity.

Communication with god is the domain of spirituality. You can blindly adhere to whatever you are told (if you have faith in the source) as long as it is in the realm of spirituality. But you must question even the God himself if he starts meddling unnecessarily with your wordly existence.

I mean what right does (so-called) God have to ask a lion to give up killing beasts when the lion is just following his nature – which makes him eat meat.

Nature is God. You can’t get away from nature and hope to get near Jesus. The farthest you go from nature, the farthest you go from Jesus.

God has no right to ask men to stay away from sexual bonds with other men, when he through nature, has given them that need. It is not God which has made sexual bonds between men sin. It is the vested interests working through organised religion who have done it in the name of god.

If you are talking about procreation, then for nearly all species found in nature, one male and one female are required even if no intercourse occurs. Is this evidence that nature intended heterosexual relationships? I suppose not.

So, the issue comes down to morality. If heterosexuality is not natural, homosexuality is not either. You are right that the culture determines sexual preference in society. Religion and/or morality aside, neither homosexuality or heterosexuality should be encouraged in a society, if it wishes to be a naturalistic society. Social pressure does determine sexual preference, but I couldn't care less. The society I live in happens to encourage heterosexuality, and I love it! So, should we seperate people into homosexual, heterosexual, and natural societies for the good of the world? That seems to be the most moral decision, but my belief in Jesus Christ says otherwise. What do you think?

 

[Buddha1]

When two men have sex one of them takes on the role of a woman, how can this behaviour then improve the masculinity in men? In the old Greek city states homosexual sex was when a grown man had sex with a young boy (teenager) who then took on the part as the woman. When the boy became an adult the relationship ended.

The idea that you need two opposites to attract each other is a totally false propaganda. That if two men are in a relationship one of them must play the role of a woman is absolutely a heterosexual idea, which is forced upon such bonds. Only homosexuals will buy that idea.

Even if one assumes that sex between men is necessarily anal intercourse, there is no scientific or empirical evidence that being the receptive partner is a feminine trait or the role of a woman. Or that men divide their role permanently into male/active and female/passive.

But the fact, as I have already mentioned, is that anal intercourse is an activity preferred only by homosexuals/ heterosexuals. Straight men don’t care for it much. It is corroborated by evidences from ancient Greece as well.

Of course, historians have tried to heterosexualise male bonds in ancient Greece by saying that the younger partner played the role of women. But there are enough indications that sex between men did not include anal intercourse. Receptive anal intercourse was looked down upon in ancient Greece, and only a particular kind of third-sex males and eunuchs (today’s homosexuals) were believed to prefer receptive anal intercourse. These homosexuals were known as Catamites.

I don’t at all think that it was right to castigate people who practiced receptive anal intercourse.

Sex between men in the ancient Greece consisted of several forms, of which mutual masturbation, and rubbing one’s dick with another’s body/ laps (I don’t know what the activity is named) were common.

It is again a later propaganda that the lovers were dumped as soon as they achieved adulthood. The older man was supposed to get married after 30 years of age. But this does not mean that he dumped his male lover. Their relationship may have been socially expired, but men used to keep their lovers for their entire lives. Marriage was a social duty they had to fulfill.

Such practices still continue in some parts of the world. And surprisingly, of all places, in Islamic Afghanistan. Men keep several wives, but their real bond is with another man – who are adult youths.

 

[Buddha1]

I will agree with you after considering the evidence and my own experience that there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature, but only evidence for sexuality.

I have already discussed as a reply to your earlier such conclusion, as to how this is not so. When I’m finished with this discussion I’d like to take up the issue of homosexuality in nature.

You are right that the culture determines sexual preference in society.

I’d like to clarify that statement. Your statement suggests that if the society gives the right kind of environment men will start preferring women for long term relationships.

My analysis of male gender and sexuality does not corroborate this. Men will only act and pretend that they prefer women. Most will not actually prefer women. They will have heterosexual relationships but they will lead stressful lives (even if they get used to a pretentious life) and a significant part of their early life will be spent on trying to reign in their sexual need for men.

Social pressure does determine sexual preference, but I couldn't care less. The society I live in happens to encourage heterosexuality, and I love it!

If you are OK with a society knowing fully well that it unfairly supports heterosexuality while penalising others ….. just because it suits you ….. what moral right do you have to talk about morality?

So, should we seperate people into homosexual, heterosexual, and natural societies for the good of the world? That seems to be the most moral decision, but my belief in Jesus Christ says otherwise. What do you think?

Can you first clarify what separating people into homosexual, heterosexual and natural society means? And how is it going to solve problems?

That seems to be the most moral decision, but my belief in Jesus Christ says otherwise. What do you think?

You know, Jesus Christ is one of the ‘gods’ that I worship daily --- along with Buddha. But as far as I’m concerned, one can never access Jesus unless one breaks free from organised religion. You don’t really care for Jesus. You care for what Christianity has taught you eversince you were a child. You care because you grew up with it. It is your identity.

Communication with god is the domain of spirituality. You can blindly adhere to whatever you are told (if you have faith in the source) as long as it is in the realm of spirituality. But you must question even the God himself if he starts meddling unnecessarily with your wordly existence.

I mean what right does (so-called) God have to ask a lion to give up killing beasts when the lion is just following his nature – which makes him eat meat.

Nature is God. You can’t get away from nature and hope to get near Jesus. The farthest you go from nature, the farthest you go from Jesus.

God has no right to ask men to stay away from sexual bonds with other men, when he through nature, has given them that need. It is not God which has made sexual bonds between men sin. It is the vested interests working through organised religion who have done it in the name of god.

 

[Buddha1]

I don't understand why you always assume that every kind of bonding is the same as sexual bonding? There are other kinds of bonding e.g. friendship.

They are not my assumptions. These things have been proven with research. Please refer to Bruce Bagemihl’s or Johann Roughgarden’s researches.

 

[Buddha1]

As a woman myself I will say that it's not easy for a woman in the Western world to find a man with whom you can be "only" friends with. In real life all my best friends are females. When I get to know a man he always assumes that I want to have sex with him and that makes friendship impossible whether I say yes or no.

Men’s primary drive is towards other men – as in nature. Their secondary drive is towards women. Under natural conditions you can not have a relationship based on your secondary drive. The secondary drive does not come to the fore unless either:

a. the primary drive is totally fulfilled, and man is looking for something new (which is towards the latter part of one’s life), or,

b. the primary drive is suppressed for a long time, and there is no hope of fulfilling it.

When the society closes all avenues for fulfilling men’s primary drives and mutilates their primary sexual instincts, then men as a survival instinct develop their secondary sexual instincts.

Yes, the majority of men do seek out women --- but you have to look at the pressures under which men exist. This is not to say that all of this sexual attention is fake. You may be an extraordinarily pretty woman.

I have however male friends on the net. And I find this very rewarding. If I e.g. have a problem and discuss it with my female friends we seem often only to talk in circles without getting to any solution. When I talk about it with a man he often gives a whole new prospect to the problem and makes it easier to solve. I guess it's due to the fact that men and women think with different parts of their brains.

It does seem that heterosexual men and women have a natural understanding of each other and can be very good friends. Heterosexual men and women naturally blur out the difference between male and female. But heterosexual men and women are a minority.

But whereas heterosexual men and women have a near perfect understanding of each other, they lack an understanding of their own sex/ gender. This is very well exemplified by your case.

 

[Buddha1]

Well one day at the park a male dog was humping my male puppy dog, I think its a form of expression of love but the owner said it was a dominant technique. Dominant technique my ass

Probably, when the male mates with the female, he is just trying to dominate her.

 

[Buddha1]

*************
M*W: I thought that as well about my 5-year-old Lab who is definitely the alpha dog in my house. My daughter got a beautiful chocolate lab who is so loving and way too big, he hasn't even grown into all his skin! Well my dog, Duchy, started humping Mr. Brown when he grew bigger than her. She had been spayed five years ago, so there was no estrual influence. I don't think it was true love or anything, it was that he got bigger than her and it intimidated Duchy's position in the family. I love my dogs and all, but Mr. Brown (Charles Bailey Brown) is the first dog I've ever given thought to running away with.

Wow! A masculine, aggressive bitch that fucks males. That sounds like heterosexuality, but it is insufficient evidence.

 

[jayleew]

I agree with you Buddah1, but what is the point of this? What can be said of human nature? We can speculate and correlate between animal and human, but there is only one experiment that can definitively explain the sexual nature of human beings, and I don't think that it particularly a moral one. Nor, is it easily accomplished. I doubt that the experiment, void of all social pressure, from birth to adult, could take place in order to find the true nature of human sexuality. For now, we can only conclude is that all the animal species, as well as humans are sexual beings with the impulse and need for companionship and sex, neither hetero or homo in nature.

However, my experience and society tells me that heterosexuality makes sense to be the common and adopted sexual/companionship practice. Mostly because of the family unit's potential to produce functional adults. This is my preference and opinion. So far, same-paired unions are producing disfunctional children. Of course, that depends on one's definition of disfunctional. All things aside, I have come to an agreement with you, but instead I have the opinion that anything but heterosexuality is immoral.

 

[Crucifixor]

As a woman myself I will say that it's not easy for a woman in the Western world to find a man with whom you can be "only" friends with. In real life all my best friends are females. When I get to know a man he always assumes that I want to have sex with him and that makes friendship impossible whether I say yes or no.

I have however male friends on the net. And I find this very rewarding. If I e.g. have a problem and discuss it with my female friends we seem often only to talk in circles without getting to any solution. When I talk about it with a man he often gives a whole new prospect to the problem and makes it easier to solve. I guess it's due to the fact that men and women think with different parts of their brains.

looks like laddertheory.com all over again

 

[c'est moi]

Buddha1,

I'm sorry if I have missed it, but could you provide a sound definition for the term "heterosexuality" and explain to us what the difference is between the behaviourial aspects?

Furthermore, could you explain what you understand as being part of "Nature" and when the boundary of it is crossed?

Last but not least, do you realise that human culture has changed the way we live ever since we discovered how to make fire, the use of symbolism, agriculture, etc. We are living unnaturual lives since the day our brains were big enough to develop self consciousness, to pursue desires previously unknown to us because society produces a surpluss in food enabeling free time. You cannot go back. We have created a world in a world. Culture is as mighty as nature because it is part of our own nature as well. Your suggestion is therefore invalid and irrelevant. The reactions to your ideas which must be seen as the behavioural response, are very clear in this too.

 

[jayleew]

God has no right to ask men to stay away from sexual bonds with other men, when he through nature, has given them that need. It is not God which has made sexual bonds between men sin. It is the vested interests working through organised religion who have done it in the name of god.

Hold on there you are going too far, you cannot scientifically prove that humans do not socially gain homosexuality or heterosexuality through their environment without performing an experiment to prove it. And performing such an experiment would require removing all social pressures and basically put a few male children in a giant box with a few female children (and somehow teach them to be self-supportive without influencing them to be homo or hetero, which seems to be an improbable feat in itself). Then, one would have to observe them through adulthood to find the true nature of humanity. And to make humans into animals like this is an immoral experiment anyway. Sure, animals act in an observable fashion, but we cannot scientifically assume that humans are different or not than animals without performing an experiment on humans.

So, your statement that god has given humans the desire for a homosexual relationship is not fact. That statement is a logical fallacy.

I have considered the evidence of sexual behavior in nature, as well as your arguments, and I am convinced by the evidence that you are correct that there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature, but it is another thing entirely to overgeneralize the fact to include the human species which is distinctly different and animals in their mental capacity, and has not been studied scientifically to the degree that other species are.

 

[mailman]

They are not my assumptions. These things have been proven with research. Please refer to Bruce Bagemihl’s or Johann Roughgarden’s researches.

Researches? Please... Bruce Bagemihl is an openly gay man who only wants to promote his own lifestyle, the same can be said about Joan Roughgarden, a transgendered who used to be a man (Jonathan) but now after surgury is a woman.