Okay this is a challenge betwen me and a user named buddah1. He is for" its not natural" and I devils_reject am for" heterosexuality is natural". So let the debate begin buddah1, you go right ahead since I have headed the introductions. Pay attention everybody.

rules(as proclaimed by our dear buddha1)

-Discuss like a man: Stop accusing, blaming and finding motives. Stick to the point in question.
- Be as specific as possible. Don't leave things to my imagination. Make your points clearly.
- No points that have already been discussed in detail will be entertained unless you read them up first and can come up with something new.

I suppose the discussion should be open for anyone to pitch in, its not a duel between me and you.

I didn't know you were going to have your own thread. But that's fine.

As long as you don't start the topic of heterosexuality in nature all over again. That part is proved. I guess you are asking me to debate the part about heterosexuaoity in men, right!

You misspelled unnatural in the thread title.

I think, you learn to be a man first. Real men when they fight respect each other......I will only proceed if you change the insulting references to me in the opening post

Be a man and fight like an equal. If this is your thread it does not mean that you can abuse me in your opening reference. I insist you change that first.

I am waiting.

?????

Are you not interested in your own challenge?

Don't rush. Two more points:
1. We will not use the western definitions or standard positions as the starting point. We will be willing to look into their fallibility.
2. this is optional....but if you win, I'll call myself queer, and if I win you will do the same.....but you really need to be a man to accept that.
3. You realise there are lot of things to be discussed and it may take more than a day. so will have to give it breaks.

And yes, you're too mistaken please. What we have proved in the thread is that heterosexuality in not found in nature --- not the opposite. It's been accepted by the other debaters too. That isi why I had asked you to read the thread first.

But if we have to do it again, I will only give broader points here. You eventually will have to consult that thread to know about that discussion.

So let's first find a definition of heterosexuality we both can agree on and that can really sum up the gist of heterosexuality. You go first.

LOL. No problem. I don't even need any rules or boundaries to make my points. No problem for me. Yes, I don't care if it takes 2 days or months. Should I go first?
Just making sure again, the loser of this discussion will admit that he is queer and devil has accepted the challenge.

You won't get anywhere by hurrying things. I'm waiting for your definition of heterosexuality.

Don't forget that who quits first will be the loser. Unless you are quitting because of a breach of the rules laid down.

What is sexual orientation

So according to this definition, if a man has been in love with 1000 men during his entire life, but towards the end of the life likes a woman but only for sex, nothing more......is he a heterosexual?

LOL. sexual orientation means preferences I'll come back to it later in the argument.

i'm waiting for my answer

Come on it's just a small point

Are you doing several things at the same time?

This is irritating!

Sure. Then just a sexual attraction for women is not enough for heterosexuality. Which means that heterosexuality involves a lack of sexual attraction for men.

right?

counter Intuitively- what made that man fall in love with men all his life and not women?
besides the point.......let's determine a complete definition of heterosexuality.

A male who changes his sex and becomes a woman and has sex with a woman, will you consider her a heterosexual man.

you do go off for long spells

Don't get agitated. Is that persona considered a heterosexual man or not?

Or is that transexual?

According to you does heterosexuality make men:

1. masculine,
2. Feminine,
3. It is neither related with masculinity or femininity

I just told you. He is bisexual. he has change dhis sex and he is having sex with the same sex. Thats two similar sex. thats bisexual
Correction, that's transexual according to western definitions and practise.

When are you going to land this airplane you have taken off with; what is your point sir?
I am trying to get a comprehensive picture of heterosexuality that we both can agree on. So that later there will not be a debate on this is heterosexuaity and this is not!

Right so that means transgendered guys who love women are not considered heterosexual because of their femininity. Well I guess that sums up what heterosexuality is supposed to mean in the western society.

One last thing do heterosexual men want to emotionally bond with women or is it possible to be heterosexual and just have occasional sex with them while not being able to fall in love with them. do you think that is possible?

If a person doesn't want to spend time with his girls but a few times in his life has had sex with girls without emotional bonding, is it possible?

Can a heterosexual guy hate bonding with women

You will have to have patience. We can put off this debate for tommorrow after we settle on the definition.

IT's futile to prove something without knowing exactly what we are proving.

We should be sure, we are talking about the same things here.

Let me rephrase it: Does heterosexuality involve bonding and romance between opposite sexes or not?

And this is the last qestion before we settle on the definition

Where are you now!

heterosexuality like homosexuality involves everything, bonding, romance, casual sex, even just telephone dating.
You are not getting my question. Suppose I don't care to love women. But I want children and so I have sex with women. Or have just enough interest in women that I can produce a child, otherwise I couldn't careless. Is that the characteistic of a heterosexual person or not?

quick reply

also involves feminine behavior. I agree. By the way why all these Western punctuations, as far as I can remember you are writting in a wetsern language, which means you also buy the culture. Moreover is the majority in the East bisexual or homosexual? I haven't been there just asking?
I'll reply to that question soon. May I have the answer in yes or no to the question i've asked.

also involves feminine behavior. I agree. By the way why all these Western punctuations, as far as I can remember you are writting in a wetsern language, which means you also buy the culture. Moreover is the majority in the East bisexual or homosexual? I haven't been there just asking?
Basic human nature all over the world is the same. Besides, like you said the basic nature of animals and humans are also the same. And it is possible to draw direct conclusions about basic drives from one to another.

SO YOU AGREE THAT THE NATURAL WAY FOR HAVING CHILDREN IS MATING WITH WOMEN. ANYWAY COUNTER INTUITIVELY IF YOU WANTED TO EXPERIENCE A HOMOSEXUAL SEX FRAY AND DID IT WITH A MAN JUST FOR THIS REASON, JUST ENOUH INTEREST, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU?
I don't believe in sexual orientation theory at all. Therefore I'm asking your opinion about what constitutes heterosexuaity in the west.

Please reply to the question.

(May I propose to look at some simpler organisms. They do not have any feelings when having sex. They just do it. I.e. they go out of the way to have sex with the oppostite sex of the same species.)

Basic human nature all over the world is the same. Besides, like you said the basic nature of animals and humans are also the same. And it is possible to draw direct conclusions about basic drives from one to another.
At least between mammals and animals.

(May I propose to look at some simpler organisms. They do not have any feelings when having sex. They just do it. I.e. they go out of the way to have sex with the oppostite sex of the same species.)
point noted.

Yes, it is a characteristic of heterosexuality. It doesn't matter what the reaosn is as long as you are attacted to them. Some people even just like the opposite sex for superficial reasons as beauty alone. so..yes it is.
Don't they want to love those women who are beautiful?

If you quit for good, you are a queer! don't forget. That's a man's word --- that's how real men conduct their lives. So if you break your word, you're a queer anyway.

Do you wanna risk that?

We can continue this discussion tommorrow if you like.

You're a pathetic queer then. So don't call yourself straight from now on. You're a quitter.

You are weaker than I thought! Lots of big words and no deed!

That means that you have no right to call me gay as you did in another thread.

I think the readers will agree that even if I have taken sometime I have not said anything that points to a low i.q. --- and that's even easier to prove wrong.

I think Devil has realised he is wrong. Or maybe someone has warned him that he is gonna loose through a pm. someone who has been to the thread "there is no evidence for heterosexualisty in nature!"

Well, I don't think very highly of you Devil_reject. And I think most people, even heterosexual men who are following this debate or who will read this in times to come, will not think very highly of you for abandoning/ denigrating their cause in such a pathetic manner.

If I were you I'd be really ashamed for quitting so easily. I mean real men would rather lay down their lives than let their honour be taken away. And when you put down so-called 'queers' it's really a big shame on you that you should so easily give in and agree to be called a 'queer'.

A basic survey on the sexuality of existing organisms seem to suggest that heterosexuality is the natural state, intermixed with bouts of self loving in the form of asexual reproduction.

A basic survey on the sexuality of existing organisms seem to suggest that heterosexuality is the natural state, intermixed with bouts of self loving in the form of asexual reproduction.
What organisms. How can you survey organisms.

One could open a general biology text book. I suggest Campbell.

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/sms_files/campbell6e_awl/login.html

This discussion is a waste of my time. I have better things to do. Goodbye and good luck. You are either under aged or a real fuck bag
That you should not bow out with grace tells volumes about your masculine qualities.

What I suspect is that you possess the typical characteristic of the minority of men who are real heterosexuals. And that makes me feel more confident of my detest of the heterosexual ideology.

One could open a general biology text book. I suggest Campbell.

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/sms_files/campbell6e_awl/login.html

I will read later thanks. Can you give me a short description of what it says.

One could open a general biology text book. I suggest Campbell.

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/sms_files/campbell6e_awl/login.html

Simpler organisms don't even have sexual dimorphism. How can they have heterosexuality?

Simpler organisms don't even have sexual dimorphism. How can they have heterosexuality?

Even bacteria have sex!

What light stuff, true heterosexuals are made off. They break so easily. And they call themselves 'men' --- masculine men at that. How can real straight men be heterosexuals? They have so much more substance.

I would never disgrace myself like this even when nobody really knows my identity --- I think that is what being a true man is all about., It's not disgraceful to lose, if only he had bowed out of the discussion showing grace, dignity and courage! I was definitily not going to ask him to accept that he is queer. That's part of being chivalrous. But leaving in such an indignified manner is really unmanly!

Even bacteria have sex!
Yes but they don't have two sexes. Their sex is more like same-sex, because there is only one sex.

In fact sex between the 'same' is the most primitive kind of sex practised by living organisms. That shows well beyond doubt that the basic purpose of sex is not reproduction and the pleasure or bonding part is more essentially ingrained for the same sex. It does seem that after sexual dimorphism occurred, nature chose to ride piggy back upon sex between male and female to achieve procreation. But as can be seen from the wild life, it still did not result in heterosexuality.

There are some examples from higher animals too who don't reproduce sexually, but they still have sex with the same-sex.
SEXUAL NEED FOR THE SAME-SEX IS THE BASIC PURPOSE/ DRIVE OF SEX, EVEN BEFORE REPRODUCTION STARTED HAPPENING SEXUALLY.

Just curious, have you ever had sex with a guy? Yes or no.
That's none of your business, and not related with the discussions. Please stop concentrating on what I do or who I am. Concentrate on what I'm saying --- for whatever it is worth!

It's you who accepted before everyone that you are queer. But you are showing even how low you can fall. I am sure all the true heterosexuals here will not be very proud to have you amongst them! You are a disgrace!

You Are Clearly Gay, And In Fact Giving Gay People A Bad Reputation. If I Ever See Someone Like You In Real Life I Will Be Friends With You For A While Till I Kick Your Ass One Day. Are You Realy So Insecured That You Can't Just Give The Opposite Sex A Try?
What's the big deal about giving the opposite sex a 'try'?

Especially when we know now that it is unnatural.

Does that mean that you are so insecure that you cannot try sex with a man?
(although most straight men hate men with no dignity --- no self-respecting man will want to touch you with a barge pole!!)

you actually told me that when next i go out i should attempt to court a similar man like me because it comes to me more naturaly. Thanks
In all mammals there are small number of males who are transexuals who bond with women sexually --- but if I count you as one of them the transexuals are going to feel really dishonoured. So I think I'll just count you as a sick, unnatural man.

Yes but they don't have two sexes. Their sex is more like same-sex, because there is only one sex.

So uni-sexuality is natural. The other states are merely derived.

So uni-sexuality is natural. The other states are merely derived.
What's unisexuality. Isn't it the same as same-sex sexuality

Maybe we could translate it as one-sex'uality.

Maybe we could translate it as one-sex'uality.
But that would be having sex with oneself! I don't think that's what we are talking about here. There are two distinct individuals involved here.

One sex, as in there is only one sex. Not sex with oneself.

But I'm interested to know what you have in mind here.

I still see as sex between two individuals who are of the same sex. I mean we are both right in a way.

Let's make a postulation then:

The primary state of natural sexuality would then be asexual reproduction.

The condition of not having any sexes but still have sex is the secondary natural state of sexuality.

The tertiary state of natural sexuality would be heterosexuality.

And if we look at evidences from the wild, even when sexual dimorphism happened, sex between the opposites was limited to procreative sex, while same-sex continued to have sexual bonds amongst themselves.

In mammals too, only a small proportion of animals in each species show traits of heterosexuality.

We see heterosexuality only amongst humans. And that too in its exclusive form only in the heterosexual west (at least that is image created through a heterosexual identity)

But then before we deduce that heterosexuality is natural for humans we have to look at other factors, like their history and the presence of external factors that may force artificial sexual behaviours in them, or may alter their sexual needs through artificial means.

Let's make a postulation then:

The primary state of natural sexuality would then be asexual reproduction.

The condition of not having any sexes but still have sex is the secondary natural state of sexuality.

The tertiary state of natural sexuality would be heterosexuality.
I think you are making the mistake of relating sexuality with reproduction.

I'll make some changes in this postulation:

In the primary stage of natural sexuality, reproduction was totally separate from sexuality. Sex was for bonding and pleasure, and reproduction was, well, asexual

In the secondary stage of natural sexuality when sexual dimorphism occurred, sexuality was divided into:
a) for bonding and pleasure between members of the same sex, and
b) for reproduction between members of the opposite sex.
(surprisingly this is how all the so-called 'bisexual' societies amongst humans see it!)

And in the third stage of natural sexuality, amongst mammals at least, in some male members the sexual need for bonds and pleasure has also mixed with the sexual need for reproduction into sex with the opposites, ie. heterosexuality.

I do not think I am making a mistake with associating sexuality with reproduction.

doesn't asexual reproduction mean that there is no connection between sex and reproduction?