Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Buddha1 said:
Not even one. To be honest I've to admit that I doubt that this group of straight men who prefer to have sex with other men even excist.
Buddha1 said:
Something interesting about the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion is that none of the antic historians like Diodorus, Plutarch, Arrian or Curtius ever suggested anything about a loveaffair between the two. That's not to say that there wasn't but yet it's worth mentioning.
Hadrian and Antinous is a good example of the man-boy love I talked about, the emperor was 48 when he saw the 14-year old Antinous and took him as his lover, a relationship that ended six years later when the boy drowned.
Buddha1 said:
Well, if it has been "destroyed" you can't know anything about it either.
Buddha1 said:
This is from Bagemihl:
Of all the species that have been observed to produce gay members, the ratio of gay sexual encounters can be calculated. "Combining these [...] yields a figure of just over 20%: roughly one-fifth of all interactions, on average, are homosexual in mammal and bird species that have [some] form of [sexual same-sex behaviour]." [Bagemihl, p35].
I assume that you with "in nature" mean animals. But if homosexual encounters among animals are just over 20% of all interactions (according to your source Bagemihl), how can you then make this claim?
lock this crap. honestly, it belongs in cess pool
Hello guys.....I'm back.
It had become too much for me to handle so much discussion all by myself. So I need periodic time off. I will try, as much as I can to stick to the main point of the thread from now on. But I'll respond to the posts made so far.
Meanwhile, about this programme on African Cheetas shown on National Geography:
The dominant male lived alone and ruled a large territory. He was a full bodied awesome male.
One day, a female came his way and tried to entice him for a long time. The alpha male was just not interested.
Then one day when he was ready to mate (probably in the latter part of his youth), a female came his way and they mated. The national channel did not say for how long but it said that such matings can go upto 6 hours. Apparently, they mated for a shorter time because the channel was embarrased to mention it.
They were still mating when he noticed a deer in the vicinity. He dumped the girl and went for the kill. The female wanted to share the meat. But the male had had enough of her. He growled at her, threatened her and drove her away. No gifting the female with goodies to win her attention.
It would of course be too much to expect the programme to show the male's relationships with other males even if they did happen. That would be against the spirit of heterosexuality/ heterosexualisation.
It had become too much for me to handle so much discussion all by myself. So I need periodic time off. I will try, as much as I can to stick to the main point of the thread from now on. But I'll respond to the posts made so far.
Meanwhile, about this programme on African Cheetas shown on National Geography:
The dominant male lived alone and ruled a large territory. He was a full bodied awesome male.
One day, a female came his way and tried to entice him for a long time. The alpha male was just not interested.
Then one day when he was ready to mate (probably in the latter part of his youth), a female came his way and they mated. The national channel did not say for how long but it said that such matings can go upto 6 hours. Apparently, they mated for a shorter time because the channel was embarrased to mention it.
They were still mating when he noticed a deer in the vicinity. He dumped the girl and went for the kill. The female wanted to share the meat. But the male had had enough of her. He growled at her, threatened her and drove her away. No gifting the female with goodies to win her attention.
It would of course be too much to expect the programme to show the male's relationships with other males even if they did happen. That would be against the spirit of heterosexuality/ heterosexualisation.
Last edited:
mailman said:
The pot calls the kettle black.
It is the heterosexuals* who have been abusing and distorting science as part of the forceful heterosexualisation of the society. And it is no more a secret.
Bruce Bagemihl and Joan Roughgarden could be monkeys for all I care. Their research is impeccable and no heterosexual scientist has been able to refute that. That is what is important.
And what is wrong with a black man proving that being black is not inferior, or a caged bird to contend that imprisioning birds is immoral. This is not really what you can call 'promoting their lifestyle'. And if it is, there could be nothing more 'right' that that.
There is nothing wrong in promoting one's lifestyle. What is a sin is to impose one's lifestyle on everybody else --- and this is something that heterosexuals are terribly-terribly guilty of --- right from distorting spirituality into a religion like Christianity that further led to the emergence of that demonic religion that has been creating havoc all through the world eversince its birth.
* I mean the true heterosexuals and not those who just take the identity as a symbol of social manhood.
Last edited:
mailman said:
Let me give very recent examples of how the true heterosexuals have been blatantly abusing science to make heterosexuality seem 'masculine'. One of the most scathing threat to the false propaganda of heterosexuality being masculine came from Transexual heterosexuals. Lately, more and more such people have been coming out. It's is increasingly becoming difficult for scientists to establish that direct relationship between femininity in men and a sexual attraction for men just because of these 'fun spoilers'.
So one genius of a scientist called M.J. Bailey conducted a research -- a blatantly fraudulent one at that, to prove that the transgenderism or queerness of these heterosexuals was 'unreal', a psychological disturbance unlike the queerness that happens amongst homosexual which is real and have a biological basis. Naturally, transexuals whether divided into the homosexual or heterosexual camp have united to protest the theory --- and have pointed out its large gaps and professional misdemeanour.
Another group of heterosexual psychologists are busy abusing children who show signs of transgenderism --- something they refer to as 'treating' them. Just like 'circumcision' is validated by the western scientists, the real motive being that its part of Christianity.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/trans/1997/menace.protests.at.psychiatric.meeting-02.21.97
Homosexual scientists have been abusing science too --- but homosexuals are really an essential part of the heterosexual set up --- and these scientists have only served to strengthen the heterosexual ideology. E.g. several homosexual scientists have introduced dubious theories claiming genetic basis for 'homosexuality'. While in effect they probably have landed a 'gene' for transgenderism. Similarly, another proved that homosexuals have a larger brain which is similar to women's brains and unlike straight men's brains. Again, the scientists in all probability was actually looking not at a quality that characterised a male's sexual attraction for men, but for a male's feminine gender. Because they had invariably taken feminine gendered men for their research.
Other attempts to brainwash the public into believing the long prevailing myths of sexual desire between men being feminine or different from 'straight'/ masculine/ regular men inlude a recent research which suggested that 'homosexual' men react differently to male pheromones.
Last edited:
What is the point of this discussion, Buddah? If you aim to prove your premise that there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature, you have already done that. Are you implying that the human race should just be natural? If so, why? If heterosexuality is not in nature, is it safe to assume that humans have not evolved into heterosexual beings? What evidence do you have to support or disprove that?
jayleew said:
It's a good thing you asked. This discussion is just a tiny part of a larger endeavour to strive for the liberation of men --- men of all hues and cries --- but especially straight men. To reclaim men's power to bond with and love other men is an important first step.
I don't yet have a model for how things should be if we were to dismantle this centuries of years old social structure --- maybe I'll never have one. That's is not important. If I'm very lucky someday, some people will take the lead from here and then maybe some day someone will unite men (and women) to work towards finding a better model. One person cannot change things. Such a deeply entrenched system -- however malicious --- cannot be changed even by a generation. But that does not mean that we should not make a beginning.
I am just doing my bit. To create an awareness that things are not right. It is not how things were supposed to be. We are going on a suicidal path. We are hurting people.....Trying to raise issues that no one knows even exist.
I'm lucky to have an access to internet and be able to share my views/ experiences. Otherwise, I'm too small a person to be heard.
Why do you think such issues should not be raised? We have all been made to believe for ages that the entire world and its species are heterosexual. Can you answer why? If you try to unravel even a simple question like that you will find layers and layers of social oppression of men and women.
jayleew said:
I think the answer is obvious. The farther we move away from our nature (whether its the nature inside of us or outside of us) the more unhappy, unhealthy, unwise, selfish and self-destructive we become. Whether we take an individual or the human species as a whole --- human welfare is
is intricately linked with nature.
jayleew said:
To answer that I'll take an example I used earlier. A climber plant if it is forced to go down and all venues for it to shoot up are closed, will climb down, even if it is against its nature. But is this evolution? hardly. All in all, it is not the best thing for the plant though it will survive. It will not grow to its full potential, and may develop several abnormalities.
The case of human beings is similar. Most men are able to divert their sexual needs/ energies from men into women. But this is not evolution. It is a situation brought about by force. And the day this force is withdrawn things will turn back to normal. Hopefully. Unless the force has been in effect for so long that it has crippled the ability of men to bond with men for ever.
I have come across several instances of men who are deeply in love with women, are ardent supporters of heterosexuality and highly critical of so-called 'homosexuals'. Yet the moment they encounter a potential relationship with a 'desirable' man, they loose their self-control.
See, men have not really evolved to be heterosexuals. You just have to scratch the heterosexual man a little and you will find the natural man alive and kicking -- but just precautious and with pretentions because the world outside is hostile.
But, why should we want to be natural? I like things like they are in the West. Can you convince me to want to be natural? What do I have to gain? What does society have to gain?Buddha1 said:
Do you have any studies that show that same-sex parents produce superior social skills in children they rear?
It sounds very much like evolution. The plant adapts with to survive, and climbs down, and may lead to "abnormalities" to better support life towards the ground. Sounds like evolution. Can you prove that heterosexuality is not the product of evolution?Buddah1 said:
Buddah1 said:
Heresay. Your experience has only a miniscule weight in proving that men, who love women, will lose self-control if they find a desirable man. I come across the opposite. Is that because we are both subjective to our own desires?
Buddah1 said:
This argument is subjective and biased, since you have not offered a study of men that is in the least scientific. Just because you feel that way about other men, doesn't mean it is reality.
jayleew said:
Many years ago my aunt and her family started to keep a parrot as a pet. They took it when it was very young and kept it in a small cage. The parrot had never known freedom, had never ventured outside. When I saw him, he was fully grown and big. The cage was hardly big enough for him to expand his wings. I could not bear his pain. It was so suffocating. I couldn't believe how anyone could treat animals like that --- that too a god fearing people like my aunt's family. I pressurised my aunt to release the parrot. My aunt loved me and agreed.
I was surprised when I took the cage out in the garden and opened it, the parrot became scared and drew himself in a corner instead of flying out of the door like I had imagined. But I was adamant. I prodded it to come out. It did hesitatingly and tried to fly but just could not. His imprisionment had taken away from him what is the most natural thing for a bird to do. He could just hop about. Then it flew a little, could not go far.
This is where my aunt took over and explained that the parrot is too vulnerable outside. He has lost his natural instincts, and will soon be eaten by cats if left outside. It was the best for the parrot to remain in the prison.
And the parrot did just that. He came back to the cage like he was coming back to home. For him the cage has been his home eversince he's gained consicousness. It gives him security. And food. And he loves his captors like they are his god. He will never know what he is missing. Because he hasn't seen the vast skies that lie above, where he belongs.
That's how men have become today after centuries of enslavement. They are born in a cage and spend their entire life in it. During adolescence/ early youth, when their 'wings' are growing they become restless, but then give in to their fate. They have never known freedom and are afraid of it.
Yet, you cannot say that we should continue to let things be as they are.
jayleew said:
I cannot convince you to be natural, just like I could not convince that parrot to fly out into the sky. It's too late now.
And I've learned that amply through my work. The difference between the reaction of the youth and that of married men is tremendous. The youth takes to the entire idea of working on masculinity --- including the idea of male sexual bonding so enthusiastically, while the older men --- who were once young themselves --- act as if they never went through any of the hardships when they were young. And the talk of male-bonds is taboo --- like they never feel that way (I can tell you they are not averse to practise sex with a man on the sly though!). For the older men have given themselves completely to the system. And like typical victims they worship their tormentor like god.
(I have also seen the transition from youth to later adulthood and seen how traumatic/ cruel it can be on men. The male sexual need for other men does not just evaporate as the western psychologists would have people believe. --- calling this an adolescent 'homosexual' phase. It is systematically mutilated, tormenting the youth, as he approaches adulthood.)
On the other hand Older men have --- after going through the hardships when they were young --- received enormous powers for conforming. They had to make so many sacrifices to establish themselves socially as real 'men'. They are at an age where freedom means little to them. After going through all the hardships, they are not going to let someone snatch that 'reward', that sense of power from them by saying that it is vain --- that it is not natural or real. They will let you believe that they have always been like that --- fitting into every single gender and sexual role that the society has set for men.
Change has little to offer them. As far as sexual bonds with men are concerned, they are well past the age where they badly need such a bond --- or where they are desirable for other men. They have cruelly mutilated their sexual need for men beyond recognition and they cannot build on it now. They have learnt to depend on women for all their sexual/ emotional needs and it gets them power from the society too. They have come to a point of no return. They can't look back. So they'd be a fool to complain now. Yet everything is not hunky dory. And this is no reason why the young should not be saved.
Unfortunately, men as they grow older start identifying with and upholding all the anti-male, repressive values and norms that had persecuted them. They become deeply anti-man. Men become men's biggest enemies -- and the society plays an active role in dividing them. Thus men as a species get caught in a vicious circle that is so difficult to break. This is why their persecution has gone on for so long --- when masculine/ straight men are the most powerful human gender.
And this is the situation in a semi-traditional, non-heterosexual society. What would be the case with men in a western, heterosexual, anti-man society. The mutilation would happen much earlier there.
Who is talking about same-sex parenting? Or homosexuality? Or gay rights?jayleew said:
We are not talking about an 'either' or 'or' situation. In fact we are not yet talking about the alternative to the present one. First we have to understand clearly what ails the present system. What is foremost is human welfare --- including that of women, children and different genders of men!
As far as children are concerned, well, we don't need so many children now.....so we can ease up on reproduction and give men a breather.....in fact we could do with a lesser human population.....hopefully without violence and death, and give humans a better quality of life.
Plus, I don't think straight men (at least not all of them) are too adept at raising children. They can be very good fathers and protecters, and could smother the child with love, but they may not be able to take good care ot them. I don't know about gay men. Perhpas they are better. And I don't think straight men would really care about raising children so much. They are much more adept at looking after male adolescents and helping them becoming capable men.
Though it is premature to talk of an alternative, a more plausible one in the near future could be a social model where men bond with men in the youth, and later marry women (which does not need to be an emotional bond, but a sexual one). It's a well tested practise and is still practised successfully in some parts of the world.
But one thing I know for sure. The society should be put back to its gender based seggregation of social spaces. The forceful merger of male and female spaces under heterosexualisation and their realignment into spaces divided on the basis of sexual orientation should be reverted. These spaces are particularly anti-men.
jayleew said:
A lot. But I would leave that to another thread. It needs a long discussion to understand how exaclty heterosexuality harms the society to understand what the society will gain if it were to go.
Last edited:
jayleew said:
There are two kinds of evolution. Natural evolution and social evolution. And then somethings are forced, which are not a part of any evolution. They are unnatural occurrences that are there only as long as the 'unnatural' force that sustains them is there. And as long as they are there they will harm the individual and the nature.
If you cut off people's right hand, they will start using their left hand. Will this make it evolution. What do you think?
There are other examples of manmade things which cannot be termed as evolution. If you manipulate dinosaurs's DNAs and rebuild dinasaurs you cannot claim it to be 'evolution'. Or can you?
Last edited:
MetaKron said:
If people empathised with other living beings there would have been no problems in this world. When people don't empathise with each other --- when men don't empathise with each other, how do you expect humans to show concern for animals.
By the way, it's customary in my country to put birds in small cages. Our living spaces are also smaller than in the west. But a cage is a cage --- nothing can replace freedom. A bigger cage will give you a little more leeway. And in this respect traditional non-western, non-heterosexual, non-christian societies are a much bigger cage for men than the modern, heterosexual, christian west.
Last edited:
One thing that I know for sure about birds is that if their cages are big enough, when they are out of them they can fly just fine.
How can I expect people who don't empathize with other humans to empathize with animals? Because animals are easy to empathize with. It's the people who can't get on with animals who I don't expect to empathize with humans.
How can I expect people who don't empathize with other humans to empathize with animals? Because animals are easy to empathize with. It's the people who can't get on with animals who I don't expect to empathize with humans.
MetaKron said:
I appreciate your concern for animals, but I think someone who has not ventured outside a cage will find it difficult to survive outside on its own. The world out there is just too hostile. You don't know who are your enemies and who are friends.
There have been several programmes on T.V. where they tried to leave human bred animals (since birth) into the wild again and they did not last long. Even a Lioness was killed by other lions within days.
You need extremely careful, patient and expert guidance to help relocate animals bred under captivity. It's same with men. If you want men to reclaim their natural masculinity, including their power to bond with men you need to patiently work with them to teach them to reduce their fear of the outside world, to deal with social hostility and to allow their natural masculinity to come out.
Last edited:
First of all, you are trying to belittle my work experience by referring to it as "your experience/ desires" and then comparing it with your (claimed) personal experiences.jayleew said:
'Our' personal experiences and attitudes have little to do with our natural desires and needs when we are straight men. We are trained to suppress our natural inclinations and desires and become what the society expects us to be. What we say is more often than not what we really mean. What we really mean, we are too scared or ashamed to say.
Certainly, it's not a question of just my desires or that of a minority of men. If it were, I would gladly go to a gay bar rather than waste my time here.
Of course, my own experiences of living in a male-only (call it male dominated if you please) society have given me a better understanding of the situations I faced during my work. It does not alter the truth. I grew up suspecting that only a few men have sexual feelings for other men -- as propagated by the west. Till I started working on masculinity and analysed my own feelings and what was going on all around me.
jayleew said:
Science is not god. It has its limitations. We have discussed some of science's limitations earlier. Another limitation of science is that it can only measure, and it can only be used to understand that which can be seen -- and has a physical existence. It fails miserably when trying to understand or analyse human emotions. But science does not accept its limitations and seeks to understand non-physical aspects of life with physical means. And this is where abuse of science happens.
So we are talking about an especially tricky human field of male sexual emotions, which is so heavily manipulated and distorted by the society -- that what appears is not what it is. When the majority of men suppress, kill and hide their true selves in order to appear 'heterosexual' in order to exist as 'straight' men it is all the more easy to (ab)use science to do a survey or a head count and say look everybody is heterosexual. But that would be far from the truth.
Inspite of this, at the time when the heterosexualisation of the west was quite new, Alfred Kinsey did an extremely scientific survey, and even with the limits of science in such matters came up with astonishing 'admittances' by men about their sexual deeds with other men --- though now I know by expereince that they were highly underreported. The western society, while on the one hand acknowledging Kinsey's work as scientific, conveniently went ahead with its heterosexualisation drive which flies straight in the face of what Kinsey's research proved.
All in all, We need much more than science to get at the basics of things here. It is possible to prove that men as a rule have a strong sexual need for men --- and that it is a straight quality --- but since the issue is shrouded by social manouvres we will have to prove it through indirect but perfectly logical methods. And I will be getting at it slowly.
Is this your last resort --- frantic bid to disprove me!jayleew said:
Last edited:
- Status