Wrong! I have consistently argued against seeing everything through the lense of hetero/homo, in fact to see anything through the lense of hetero/ homo. If anything, I have been arguing for removing these barriers and making these feelings/ bonds available to everybody. In short for making sexuality fluid as it naturally is.ZenDrake said:It seems that you look through everything through your lense of hetero/homo beliefs.
The extent to which it has been done, yes it does. Everything has been affected today by the ancient mechanism to 'upgrade procreation'. Someone who is speaking pragmatically from with in the system, and has accepted the system as the natural reality, will not see this.ZenDrake said:All does not come back to an argument about state protection and endorsement of male-female sex.
I have cared to look at things from outside, and when you do you get to see how everything is a farce and should not be there.
Had we lived according to our nature there would have been no need to stop procreation through any means at all.
Men and women were compulsorily forced into socio-sexual contracts with each other (the reasons for which social pressures like social masculinity and ridicule were built) because we needed more children.
Today, we don't need more children because with science, the infantile fatality rate has become negligible and life expectancy has increased several folds.
For someone like you (and everybody else here actually), who is working from within the structures created by societies milleniums ago, the job at hand is to use technology and things like abortions to avoid the problems arising out of the hordes of male-female sex that has been artificially created by the age old (and now accepted as natural) social pressures to which the heterosexual society has tremendously added.
That seems to be the only pragmatic and logical thing to do for you.
I'm going to the root of the problem and saying, REMOVE THE PRESSURES' and you won't really have a problem. This of course requires opening up our minds from our limited hetero/ homo perspectives which sees everything relating with procreation with heterosexuals, and everything related with same-sex bonds with 'homosexuals'.
Please watch what you say. I have never vouched for buggery, eventhough I am not against it. I just couldn't care less.ZenDrake said:Buddha is more a fan of buggery than of the rythm method.
Last edited: