I've come to a conclusion: NOTHING is "unatural". Homosexuality can't be called unatural because it happens, therefore it is natural. Does anyone see what I'm getting at? Does anyone dare oppose me? :D

Homosexuality is an act which is condoned by nature, true. Though a penalty by nature is the inability to reproduce, therefore the dissentegration of genes, as there are no offspring to continue the pool.

Homosexuality wasn't a very good example for me to use because it has (for the most part) become socially acceptable. What if I were to use pedophilia as an example? Would anyone take me seriously if I stated that pedophilia is not unnatural? It may be uncommon or socially unacceptable, but that doesn't mean it's unnatural does it?

-Kyle

BTW, how do you spell "un-natural?" I'm too lazy to look it up :D .

Homosexuality is merely natures way of ensuring the truly gifted are NEVER burdened with children.

As for natural? I tire of explaining this again. Check the archives it'll be under

'same ol same ol'

let's talk about why heterosexual men with foreskins rarely wash underneath them. Should we blame the parents?

I understand that to most americans this subject is moot. empathise!

Nebula:
NOTHING is "unatural". Homosexuality can't be called unatural because it happens, therefore it is natural.

Choose any animal.

Imagine anything it can or does do.

Can any of these actions be described as unnatural?

Is man not an animal?


Sound thinking :)

George Carlin went on a slightly-related nice little rant. He was talking about a valid point in how environmentalists are dumb-arses and he started talking about plastic. He said surely if we all have a purpose than man has a purpose. And what was his purpose? Plastic! And now that the earth has the plastic she wanted, she will dispose of us. How? By a human immuno-deficiancy virus!

Anyway, while this may be a valid point it's useless. The only people you need to argue homosexuality to is religious folk. And logic don't matter in that arena.

I love George Carlin! He's unaturally funny!

it is spelled 'unnatural' ;)

I've come to a conclusion: NOTHING is "unatural". Homosexuality can't be called unatural because it happens, therefore it is natural. Does anyone see what I'm getting at? Does anyone dare oppose me?

I would dare oppose you...if you were not 100% correct. Which, of course, you are in this case.

Originally posted by Nebula
I've come to a conclusion: NOTHING is "unatural". Homosexuality can't be called unatural because it happens, therefore it is natural. Does anyone see what I'm getting at? Does anyone dare oppose me? :D

Complete semantics runaround...

Homosexuality is natural, with a natural consequence of oppression of homosexuals who attempt to integrate into the mainstream of an animal social group.

So what have we proved?

Language as labyrinth.

I'm not exclusively talking about homosexuality, I merely used it as an example because most of us are familiar with the Christian stance: homosexuality goes against how God designed us and is thus unnatural.

And prozak, I realize my original comment may have been a bit circular :).

It's like the classic 3 bandit scenario:

Bandits 1&2: Why did you get 5 pearls while we only got two each?

Bandit 3: Because I'm the leader.

Bandits 1&2: What makes you the leader?

Bandit 3: I have the most pearls.

Hehe.

Christianity is unnatural. I'm no big fan of excessively sexual behavior however.

Christianity is unnatural. I'm no big fan of excessively sexual behavior however.

Prozac'll do that to ya every time !!! :D

Homosexuality: The only people this really matters to are those with too much free time and too much interest in other peoples' affairs. Screw it. It realy doesn't matter. Will it really make your dinner taste better or your gas bills cheaper if some political lobby group goes one way or another on this? Who the fudge cares?

Natural vs Unnatural: Nature tries everything, it seems to me. Within certain physical laws (which I personally think we are just beginning to nail down right now), Nature tries everything. One way or another, throughout the universe, all sorts of stuff happens by chance or design now and then. Endless variety is natural. So is stasis, when one of those varieties results in something stable and functional. Yin and yang dudes. Chaos and order, stability and flux. Everything is natural.

Shouldnt you first define exactly what is unatural by you statements?
Wouldnt something be unatural only if it is synthetic?
Is anything truly synthetic? Once it exists, does it not then become natural? If a thing is not made by nature, then is it unatural?

Pardon the lousy spelling and grammar, I'm at work and doing 4 different thing at once, this doesnt fell natural at all....

Originally posted by Adam
Homosexuality: The only people this really matters to are those with too much free time and too much interest in other peoples' affairs. Screw it. It realy doesn't matter. Will it really make your dinner taste better or your gas bills cheaper if some political lobby group goes one way or another on this? Who the fudge cares?

Natural vs Unnatural: Nature tries everything, it seems to me. Within certain physical laws (which I personally think we are just beginning to nail down right now), Nature tries everything. One way or another, throughout the universe, all sorts of stuff happens by chance or design now and then. Endless variety is natural. So is stasis, when one of those varieties results in something stable and functional. Yin and yang dudes. Chaos and order, stability and flux. Everything is natural.

...including calling something "unnatural" and putting pink triangles on it.

Absolutely. Man, I'm so friggin drunk, and late for maths.

Originally posted by Adam
Absolutely. Man, I'm so friggin drunk, and late for maths.

I think wanting to kill the useless is an intelligent and wholly natural response.

And there are many useless... like 2/3 of humanity.

The world 'unnatural' is loaded word meant to judge and condemn. It is an invention of Christianity, and especially in the context of homosexuality what they really mean is that it is socially unacceptable.
The word is today also wrongly used in other contexts, e.g., "unnatural death". Now death cannot be unnatural. When a person dies because of say, stabbing, it is a perfectly natural response of the body to a lethal attack. If the attack is Lethal, and the person does not die, that would be 'unnatural'.

However, there are things that are truly acts against nature. Unfortunately, science is a human institution that is being used big time as a tool against the nature. By exploiting and killing mother earth for our short term (ab)use and for luxury. This can truly be called unnatural.
Similarly to force men to desist from forming intimate bonds with other men also tantamounts to working against natural forces and thus can be called 'unnatural'. All in all, I might say that we are living in a very unnatural world.
And yes, Christianity is truly unnatural too, because often it seems to boss around with nature and taking it upon itself to define and abuse it.

Everything we do is natural. Being a part of nature, how can we do anything that is contrary to our nature? How can you live contrary to life? We are the way we are naturally, we got to this state through evolution.

"how can we do anything that is contrary to our nature? "

Unfortnuately, we can. But when we do that we have to pay its price.
If a man dislikes sex with a particular woman but still has sex with her for the fear that he may be considered impotent or gay, he is acting against his nature.
Man has become so powerful, that he has created his own artificial environment (although by manipulating natural laws) where he can do things that otherwise will be impossible. And religion is that force that is used to force people live against their nature. Men usually suppress their strong sexual feelings for other men, so that they are isolated through the repressive 'gay' label.
But then he has to bear its consequences, which may mean a very stressful life.
If it weren't for society's artifically created norms, beliefs and laws, men would behave according to their nature, which they do not do. I don't see why we cannot call this unnatural.
Maybe you'd like to use another word instead of 'unnatural' because it has several moral implications and is not purely a scientific word.
How about 'anti-natural'.

"Men usually suppress their strong sexual feelings for other men, so that they are isolated through the repressive 'gay' label."

That should have been,
Men usually suppress their strong sexual feelings for other men so that they are not isolated through the repressive 'gay' label.

"we got to this state through evolution"

There are two kinds of evolution. Natural evolution and social evolution. And then somethings are forced, whichi are not part of any evolution.
Religion is not a part of natural evolution. And least not Christiantiy and Islam. Religion is not even a part of normal social evolution. It was forced down people's throat through blood shed and violence..
If you manipulate dinosaurs's DNAs and rebuild dinasaurs you cannot claim it to be 'evolution'.
You could perhaps say, for instance, that Islam is a virus that nature built to destroy humankind, as part of an intricate destruction mechanism when a species becomes too powerful and destructive for the nature itself.

go to the roots of un-natural. say you have the polar-related extremes, or oppo-sites, life and death, and some one comes and says 'no, they REALLY are NOT related, but are separate, and you can only have one if you do abc--like say Christianity says

or say the same for amy polar related oppoistes. well the splitting of them is un-natrual isn't it?

you may argue that the very action Os splitting them must be 'natrual' cause it was done, but is it? what do you think?

We cannot break nature's laws but we can:
1. understand its laws (through science and use it for our good or bad)
2. destroy nature.
although, I guess, finally its the nature that will win.

It is this destroying nature part that I'm referring to as unnatural or anti-nature.

It is this destroying nature part that I'm referring to as unnatural or anti-nature.

So am I. if ANYTHING is UN-NATURe-al it is DESTROYING Nature

but i am not agreewith with relying on is science and its 'laws' of Nature. As i dont think ANY movement has caused so much
distress for Nature than mechanistic science

also i'd like to say soemthing bout the homosexual theme
i am Queer. the same as i first sad apples to the patriarchal split between the polar related CONTINUUM of male and female. patriarchy denigrates the latter and deifies the former....so any manifestation OF their continuuousness...as revealed in Queerness, trnasexuality, effeminacy....and all the gender-bending diversities, and sensitivity in a male etc is seen as unnatural by the male or female who clings to one extreme over another, and thus fears the other

I've come to a conclusion: NOTHING is "unatural". Homosexuality can't be called unatural because it happens, therefore it is natural. Does anyone see what I'm getting at? Does anyone dare oppose me? :D

Define natural?

Jan Ardena.

Buddha1,

Men usually suppress their strong sexual feelings for other men so that they are not isolated through the repressive 'gay' label.

Why do you say this?

Jan Ardena.

Your post has made me do some serious thinking. I must say I was moved for a while. While I had strong feelings about the modern society's interference with the continuum of human 'sexuality' which the west has distorted into two opposites of black and white, I had not given serious thought to the continuum of gender. Though I am aware that gender is also a continuum, your post gave me an insight into the pain that is brought about by 'scientifically' breaking gender into two opposite poles and trying to do away with the vast grey area --- the middle section. I guess, the one's really at the receiving end are those who are at the feminine end.
I did some reading on the net. It's interesting how ancient cultures did not think that female in male was undesirable in any way. In most societies it was not even a separate third gender. In fact all human beings had two spirits. And what the west terms as 'hermaphrodite' were actually seen as the physical manifestation of this two spirits. Cross-dressing was no big deal, and men did that for various rituals. It was not supposed to signal a different gender. But it seems they still accounted for people who felt the other sex than their outer genitals, and held them in high esteem. They wereften believed to have healing powers and sometimes they were priests. Some societies believed that there is a small vagina on the top of every penis (the urethral opening) and a small penis in every vagina (the clitoris)..
Other societies, considered only feminine in males and masculline in females to be two spirits, but nevertheless, thought very highly of them.
This is perhaps an ideal situation. These earlier societies were either converted by the Christians or otherwise influenced them with their anti male-male sex and anti feminine gendered doctrines.
You can see that in todays society the gender differences in females do not mean much and they are not really divided on the basis of gender. This is because in our modern society, masculinity in men has been overvalued, and femininity in men unnecessarily hated, with the modern sophisticated society using its full force (including science) to keep femininity out of the mainstream.
In today's world, gender and sexuality have been so much tampered with and made confusing, that before we talk about that ideal state its important to first sort out the confusion that the west has created arouund the various identities that it has created. And then talk about a state such as that exists amongst women, actually better, where you can just be what your instincts at the moment tell you to do (as regards gender and sexuality) without being bound by labels or stereotypes. This is why I still insist on dividing men into straight and let's say 'two-spirited' gender.. Gender identities actually may not be so unreal as sexual identities.
However, the two spirited identity should not exclude people forming relationships with women. In fact they should not differentiate people on the basis of who they have sex with, because like all people, most 'two-spirited' people also have a sexual need for all the three -- men, women and other two spirtied people.
And straight men should also do likewiise. We don't need sexual identities.

I forgot to mention that the post I just submitted is for Duendy.

Some more on 'Science':
I believe that science came into being as man became 'heterosexual', with the advent of Christiantiy. As man suppressed his nature, in order to be 'heterosexual' he also lost respect for nature outside of him. It is as a result that he invented science.
Science is a human institution that tries to study nature by isolating its various parts. However, nature is not only what we can see, and its various parts are nothing separate from the whole. Earlier human ventures to study nature were complete institutions which considered all the aspects of nature -- the physical, emotional and spiritual. They considered it as a whole, and they tried to understand their relationship with each other, rather than try to study them as distinct, independant variables.
I guess, isolating natural components artificially, gave science the tool to exploit nature for its short term needs (actually he did not really need the power that he got from exploiting nature). Something the heterosexual man was not wary of, since he had no respect for nature. Exploiting nature for power you don't really need to survive is 'unnatural'. It is like making a hole in the plate that you eat in (a Hindi proverb).
In fact the heterosexual man was weak and hollow from inside, unlike the naturally masculine men of the ancient world. In order to beat them the heterosexual man used his mind in an extremely negative way to exploit nature and use its powers to make up for his own deficiency. The modern heterosexual brand of masculinity is superficial 'machoness', and includes meaness, selfishness, disdain of the feminine, bragging and fake social power. In contrast, the ancient masculine man was macho from within, strong, courageous, polite, fair, considerate and respectful of others and venerated the nature. The ancient man used his brains to progress with nature, not against it.

Science and human sexuality:
Isolating the variuos parts of physical things and studying them is one thing (though still wrong), but to study human emotions, needs and desires in complete isolation from the whole, by artificially and clinically disecting them into parts is horrendous. Science is a totally superficial institution that can only work with things that you can see. It does not work with what you can only feel and not see. Psychology and psychiatry as a science is a complete hoax.
Since this hoax has state acceptance, it is unabashedly used as an instrument to spread lies and myths about human emotiions, including what the west refers to as 'sexuality'. Only because Christianity does not like it.
This scientific method was used to make men heterosexual, when the power of religion started to fade. The idea was to break the wholesome composite human sexuality into two distinct parts, so that they can suppress the part they don't want and hoping that one day through science they can find a final solution. That explains the western science's preoccupation with trying to find out the reasons for what they term 'homosexuality'. Isolation (like you isolate a virus) is the very first step. The unnatural and artificial concept of 'sexual orientation' is the social manifestation of this scientific plot.

The society and science are hand in hand about seeking to eliminate so-called 'homosexuality' from the society (if not the humankind in the near future).
With the gift of the 'sexual orientation' concept which had the approval of the ultimate authority --- the science, the society has pulled all plugs in its attempt to manipulate and marginalise sexual relationships between memn.They have basically tried to portray that:
(a). All relationships and desires that involve sex between two people who both have male sexual organs are the same in character and can be clubbed under the term 'homosexuality'.
(b). 'Homosexuality' is feminine/ third gender in character. Therefore, all male sexual desire for another male is essentially feminine in character.
(c). That Homosexuals are a separate third gender species, distinct from heterosexuals.
(d). That this species is a minority, more of a deviancy/ abnormallity, something that the nature never intended, and something that has no place in the nature's scheme of things.
(d) That heterosexuality, the opposite of homosexuality is bascially masculine in character.
(f). that men are essentially heterosexual.
Of course the third gender, which had been oppressed for so long, snapped at the opportunity to claim this homosexual space. It was good to have a space of their own, when earlier you were so oppressed that you did not have a place in the society at all. At least the third gender had power in this small 'gay' space. And they were only too happy to claim 'sexual desire for other men' as their domain. At the cost of the majority of third gender guys who have a strong sexual need for women.
The society has given unimaginably enormous powers to men when they court women. And it throws men to unimaginable depths if he accepts his desire for other men. Then he is not considered straight anymore.
All this had the effect on straight men that they started shunning relationships with men like hell. They would die before they accept a sexual attraction for another male. The society has managed to create such a scare amongst straight men that they are even scared to hold each other's hands in public.
This is how man has been made heterosexual by the society, with the help of science.

Jan ARdena, does that answer your question?

Perhaps you guys would like to visit this site:
heterosexualisation.blogspot.com

MUCH of what you are saying is petry for my ears. you reveal yourself to be openminded and exploratative....

Can i recommend you read this book...The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health movement, by Thomas Szasz
He shows the history of psychiatry and how they make up 'disorders' for social control. A biggie was 'homosexuality'....! it is a great book, read it

and checkout this fascinating story at
PCNL Library - Wolgang Pauli: Resurrection
of Spirit in he World www.paricenter.com/library/papers/peat20.php
"Pauli had realized that the key element in our modern world is the lack of soul in the scientific conception of the world..........[T]he missing element was Eros; only love could bridge the gap between physics, spirit, and psychology....."

MUCH of what you are saying is petry for my ears.

What does the word "petry" mean?

Heterosexuality is unnatural, abnormal and a disease

This is not rhetoric. Whether we look at our present day society, or the ancient world --- this is the resounding message that we get. Scientifically, biologically and morally.

Man, at least straight man was never ever meant to be heterosexual.

Defining Heterosexuality

Let's clearly define heterosexuality first. The western society conveniently plays with these words to suit their own anti-men's agenda. In common parlance it is often used to simply refer to sex or sexual desire between male and female. Heterosexuality, however, is not as simple as that, nor is sexual desire for women the ownership of heterosexuals. Heterosexuality in reality is an ideology, which embodies two things:
- exaggeration of sexual desire for women to a point that nature can't healthily sustain.
- Suppression of sexual desire for men, which is equally unhealthy.

Heterosexuality means exclusive and all encompassing sexual desire for women, and an inversion to male eroticism and bonding.

Defining Homosexuality

It is also important to define homosexuality clearly, since it is cunningly meant to cover two opposite ends of male spectrum --- the masculine and the feminine, which is practically not possible, but the western world has lived with this concoction for a long time.

Sex or sexual desire between males is also not the ownership of homosexuals. Homosexuality for all practical purposes refers to sexual attraction of a feminine/queer male (often referred to as gay) either for another feminine man or for a straight man (they are both different desires). Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality covers the sexual relationship or desire of a straight man for another straight man (or even for a feminine man).

Furthermore, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality even remotely represents the sexual nature of straight men.

Sexual nature of straight men

Straight men, by nature, are driven to seek sex with women occasionally (about once each year like in the animals). They are meant to seek life-long committed relationship only with other men (mostly straight men). This is supported both by history and the animal life.

Most of the men including straight men who go around with the 'heterosexual' label are not really heterosexuals. They are just pretending.

The straight man's desire for another straight man is way different than a woman's desire for a straight man or a 'homosexual's' (feminine male) desire for a straight man. A straight man's desire for women is also very different from a feminine man's desire for women.

Animal sexuality

In none of the mammal species we know of is the male 'heterosexual'.

Which other mammal do you know where the male pairs off with a female for lifelong or even for a period greater than a week! Heterosexual mating takes place once a year, during the mating season and that too for a very short duration ranging from a few hours to a couple of days (depending on the species) after which the male goes back to his pack. Of course the discovery channel will not tell you what the males do the rest of the year, although recent discoveries have shown a lot of sexual committed bonding between males. So the guys that bang each other's heads for a fuck of the female go back to their male lovers after attending to their natural call --- fulfilling their duty, so to speak.

If mammals were indeed heterosexuals they would not live separately for such long periods when they can easily live together. They don't even have to live in male only or female only groups. They can also choose to live in heterosexual spaces like the modern, Christian West does (perhaps the sons of gods of the world couldn't reach them). Animals live according to their natural instincts, not on the basis of some lords or prophets commands.

The animal males choose a new female partner each year, whereas, in the few cases studied they tended to bond lifelong with other males (in one-to-one bonds), unless forced apart by death. Clearly the males do not have any sense of commitment or attachment with the females – a basic requirement of heterosexuality.

What's more in species like the elephants, the males only approach females when they are about 40 years old. That in a life span which is only about 60 years by which time the elephant is too old even to move around properly. Sex between males is only too well known amongst the elephants.

We must not forget that most cases of affection and sexual bonding between males in the wild are not reported by the scientists – a phenomenon which has only now started to be documented. Even if they wanted to, they are too biased and ill informed to really find it out.

The strongest bias is this stupid 'scientific' theory that they have that every single move and thought of the animal is (consciously or unconsciously) directed towards facilitating reproduction, especially if it's even remotely concerned with sexual bonding. So if there is sex between males, it has to fit into this 'overall' purpose. Of course they will only look for cases of sex, love between males neither exists in the animal world nor is it important.

Another bias is that scientists tend to consider only cases of anal intercourse in animals as 'homosexuality'. That's absolutely illogical (in fact trying to find 'homosexuality amongst animals is itself wrong and biased because it's a peculiarly human /western/Christian concept). Even amongst the humans straight men do not prefer intercourse when they have sex with another straight man. When men have sex with women or with 'homosexuals' they may only have intercourse because it's socially so constructed.


Human history

Almost all ancient tribal societies, only a couple of which now remain, had institutionalized sexual bonding between men and often gave it precedence over sex with women. In these societies, like in the animal world, sex between males and females happened periodically every year and was restricted to just sex – but only so much that procreation can occur. In fact in all the ancient traditions (there are still several that survive today in non-western societies) womanizing is considered a feminizing factor for men.

We don't need to recount what happened in Greece. Suffice it to say that whenever the society accorded male-male bonds its true place, they have marginalized male-female bonds, and societies have been forced to find means to compel men to copulate with women. It seems to be a perenial problem.

In medieval societies by which time, male-female marriages were already made compulsory (we are still far away from heterosexuality) and sex between men either flourished (in some societies) side by side under social acceptance if not institutionalization or (in other societies) it was accepted behind the scenes, not openly. But in either case, interaction between man and woman was restricted to just the act of sexual intercourse (which, I might add, in most societies did not involve taking off clothes, nor doing it with lights on) often once in every couple of months). Or to matters concering family (children, ration, etc.). In these societies the issue was 'procreation' and not satisfying women.

Also in both kinds of societies sex (not love) between a feminine male (homosexual) and a straight man was openly allowed.

This has been the case in most of the non-western world till recent times, before the advent of globalisation and cultural invasion by America which has begun a process of heterosexualisation of these societies.

Marriage is unnatural

A true man can never share his life with a woman (or even with a feminine male) without sacrificing his happiness. Even a relationship with them is heavy on him. This is something that only a person with enough femininity can afford. In fact the more masculine a man gets the lesser his attraction for women gets too.

The love and bonding that a straight man can give to another straight man, neither a woman nor a homosexual male can give to him. A feminine male (homosexual or heterosexual) is equally unlikely to understand a straight man than are women, and is not likely to be compatible with him. They both have the least understanding or appreciation of masculinity. All that they have is a sexual attraction which is transient. Women and Feminine males may like macho men for short term flings, but they soon get bored of it and then they want to change them.

Straight men too can at best have short flings with women and feminine males.

Interestingly, the same thing happens at the other end of the spectrum --- the more feminine a man gets the lesser his interest in women gets too.

You become that, which you love

Of course there are some men who are genuinely heterosexual in this world, i.e., genuinely want to share their life with a woman. But these are not the typical males. These true heterosexuals are harmless and enlightened creatures and are most likely the two-spirited people that the ancients once venerated. I.e. they have both the male and female spirits (masculinity and femininity) in them almost in equal proportion. This way you can say that they have 'hormonal balance'. They fall somewhere between the masculine males (straights) and feminine males (including non-homosexuals). These two-spirited people may not be too different from today's meterosexuals.

Women who really want to share life with a man really crave for this meterosexual man, not one of those macho or straight guys.

The height of heterosexuality is the ultimate two-spirited person – who is also considered to be the epitome of spirituality --- what the heterosexual society has ironically denigrated as 'transsexual' and 'hermaphrodite'. He is a person who is two-spirited from within as well as from the outside – he has male genitals but he feels he is a female – his love for women has turned him into a male-woman. Or he has the genitalia of both male and female as in the case of the hermaphrodite.

Incidentally, the height of femininity in males is also Transexuality (although it's not two spirited, only feminine spirited but signifying a unique form of positive energy nevertheless). The height of the masculine spirited (straight) man is macho -- a stage which traditionally insists on total abstinence from women. However, the term macho has been much maligned and distorted by the heterosexual society. The heterosexual version of 'macho' is selfish, cruel, mean, unfair and of course 'heterosexual'. The naturally macho man on the other hand was strong from inside, fair, respectful of others, caring, righteous and a true warrior. He was someone who is a true stickler for fair rules. And it does not need to be said that he took love with a man to its highest form, with total and exclusive devotion – like the ancient Greeks. The world has not seen such love eversince.

I'm reminded of an ancient myth, where god Zeus in anger divided his subjects– the male, female as well as the hermaphrodite gods -- into halves. He later relented and sent them to earth as humans, each one's goal in life being to reunite and bond with his/ her other half, in order to become complete again.

Thus the males started craving for a man (his other half), the female craved for another female and the hermaphrodite person who was divided into a man and a woman has since been looking for and courting 'heterosexual' bonds. We are all supposed to represent one of these.

God does not want man and woman to bond

If god wanted man and woman to live together he wouldn't put one on Venus and the other on mars. There is absolutely no understanding between them.

There is hardly any sexual compatibility between men and women. Ever since heterosexuality came into being so have innumerable big and small sexual dysfunctions --- problems that have arisen because of forcing men into heterosexuality --- into a sexual bond with women that nature cannot support. There'll hardly be a 'heterosexual' man today who does not face sexual problems even though he may be shy of seeking treatment.

Man and woman cannot satisfy each other in bed fully. They both have absolutely different sexual clocks and different patterns of orgasms and absolutely no natural understanding of how the other's body works.

Straight men are wary of being intimate with women beyond ejaculation. They do not like to cuddle women in bed. Of course women often complain that men turn the other way as soon as they shed their semen. The orgasm of the female or her sensuality or her femininity in itself does not interest men. It would if it was not forced on them beyond the natural limit.

And of course there is the adage that 'men want sex from women' while 'women want love'. Real men just can't dream of emotional intimacy with women --- it's a fact, and I'm sure, most women will not feel sorry because of it. They too (apart from a small minority – the equivalent of male two spirit heterosexuals), secretly, be better off living with their own with occasional sexual escapades with the opposite sex.

Surely, if nature had intended heterosexuality it would not be so dumb as to make it so painstakingly difficult.

Forcing Heterosexuality

If heterosexuality was indeed so natural, such extreme social maneuvering would not have been needed to keep it in place. I mean look at the way the entire society, each and every element of it is meant to promote 'heterosexuality' howsoever uncomfortable or unnatural these elements may seem. So much so that today even small children are taught about dating and made to understand in no uncertain terms that if they want to grow up 'straight' (which they better do!) they must be heterosexual. And to think that these messages go through the most innocent of channels – cartoons.

And if 'heterosexuality' was indeed natural it did not need to fear 'homosexuality' so much. There would have been no need for such an immense force to control it as is being used today. Of course in the first place there would have been no need to bring in god to restrain it. If male-male sexuality is talked about it is only of the homosexual variety (stereotyped as feminine guys looking for a fuck) so as to keep straight men restrained. And children must be absolutely kept out of it, because the only hope to keep the society heterosexual is to fill their minds with filth about sexual relationships between any kind of males. Because if they fail to do it in that tender age, they have no hope whatsoever.

Heterosexuality is an anti-male ideology

Heterosexuality makes men subservient to women. A heterosexual society judges a man's manhood by his ability to 'satisfy' women. This gives women an immense power and handle over men. While all women are aware of this power that they have over men (and not all are interested in using them) some sexually aggressive women (polite term for whores) use this power to sexually abuse and exploit men. Because, man will have to submit to a woman's demand for sex lest he be disqualified from being a man. Thus 'heterosexuality' has made men vulnerable to unimaginable sexual abuse. Heterosexuality has created a society where the 'woman' has been granted the power to grant manhood to a man, and it no longer flows from within a man and from being with men.

However, this is good news for the weak two-spirited 'heterosexual' (not all heterosexuals need this cheap power). These men not only gladly submit themselves before women, they want to make the entire male species subservient to them. These men can hardly feel for the male race or masculinity because all they can think about is women and femininity and how to serve them.

Subsequently, a heterosexual society is over sensitive to the issues of women, but is impervious, often hostile to the needs of men.

These weak heterosexuals are the real eunuchs (non-men). They are the betrayer of the male population. They speak for women. They should not call themselves 'men'. They sell out the male race to the women and happily become their slaves.

Conclusion:

Thus it can be forcefully said that heterosexuality in the form that is enforced in westernized societies – as masculine and majoritarian, is unnatural, abnormal and gives rise to a number of physical, emotional, mental, social and spiritual problems both in men, women and the two-spirited people.

At the same time, the whole concept of homosexuality is also unnatural and abnormal in its present form. In fact the very validity of the concept of sexual orientation is questionable, but that is quite another matter.

No where in the mammalian world does the male partake in the raising of children. The birds do, and probably that is +why they're heterosexual. But not humans. Children are nice to raise, and men awe women for the power of procreation that they have, but heterosexuality is too heavy a price to pay for it. After all, women cannot make children without men.


Coming up…… Heterosexuality is a disease!

what 's it mean when we say something is un-natural? i break down the term so...un-naTURE-al. against Nature. what about decay then? that SEEMs against Nature if you believe Nature's only about life. but it isn't, death is very much included in the dynamic pattern and/or mystery.....but what if i came to your town and emptied a lethal toxic ingedient to your water system that made all who drank from is die a really awful toxic death, so that even your BODIEs couldn't naturally rot and had to be carefully incinerated because the smoke and remeains still were toxic. is THAt natural. i would say no cause it isn't workin WITh Nature.......it is some calculatedly malicious act whose intent it is to destry fo NO reason but for some grievance

an animal wouldn't do that would it? i am asking

So what about sexuality? as explained by Bddhia1's article, and other sources, which include dolphins etc, animals DO have same sex relations. so that is natrual right? and we are animal and we do it. so that's natrual right? wrong?

what i am saying is is that you preople who harp on about Queers being Unnatural have a bleedin BLINDspot for viscious thugs in power who willy nilly R the closest meat to what i would term unnatrual, in that they have no concern whatsoever for Nature, including other species, or human life, or the quality of life for ALL

I am utterly open to every idea; nothing is off-limits to me.

I don't know what's that supposed to mean.

You are a steam-roller of rhetoric. Kudos!

You think so! Well at least I'm reasoning things out. Prove me wrong! That is more important.

Yet - it is an utterly a subjective opinion; or even school-of-opinions.

No it is not. I am speaking neither from my personal experiences alone nor from a 'group' of people who are supposed to share a 'differernt' point of view. I'm speaking from the strength of living in a traditional non-western society as a masculine straight man, and more importantly of working, for the past ten years, with men (mostly masculine (straight) men) on the issues of gender and sexual health.
I've seen men all around me struggling to fit into the western heterosexual identities in a fast changing world.

I've seen the strongest, most macho men struggling with their sexual feelings for other men when inadvertently caught in a bond --- inspite of all the pretences otherwise. I do not know of a single man who can take sex with woman in a natural, matter of fact way. No it's always such a big pressure on men. They must prove themselves. I've seen young men chasing girls with such urgency as if someone is forcing them to do it – it all seems so unnatural. That set me out to find out reasons for what afflicts man. What I'm saying is based on what I've found.

The pair-bonding male-female marriage “ordeal” may be unnatural in your opinion. Which is based upon what - that you are a homo-sexual? It is merely a question to gauge your objectivity. Yes or no?

Oh no you don't! That's a time tested western strategy to isolate men who speak up for their right to bond with another man. This labeling thing may work wonders with your fellow countrymen. But not with me. I'm out of your 'sexual orientiation' system. I'm clear about my identity, given to me by my society --- a masculine straight man. I'm clear about what place men and women have in my life as far as sex and love are concerned, but those are my personal things nothing to do with my identity.

There is no such thing like a 'homosexual' in nature. Neither in the society that I live in. Unless you are talking about those feminine guys. But they have more in common with heterosexual men (if at all there is such a thing!) than with me or other straight men.

The concept of 'sexual orientation' is a clever western creation to keep straight men heterosexual.

Or maybe a female - a lesbian? Yes or no?

The question does not arise

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now a word of advice:
If you are quite through examining my motives for writing this article, you may try to understand what it is saying.

I know its difficult for you because it strikes at your power base, and because you have 'strange' religious values, But when its time for truth to come out, it has to come out. You cannot forever rule with lies. You cannot steal our identities and appear masculine with it. Not forever!

Both heterosexual and homosexual people in the west will have trouble understanding what I'm saying because you live in an entirely different unnatural set up, but straight men will automatically relate with what I'm saying. See I've done my homework well, and I know what I'm talking about.

'Heterosexuality' the disease

Heterosexuality is a disease which has serious repercussions – for men the most, but also for women and the third gender (including the heterosexuals). Heterosexuality gives rise to a number of physical, emotional, mental, social, sexual and spiritual problems in people, especially straight men.

The progression of the disease

Heterosexuality is the most advanced form of a disease the roots of which go back long long ago in the history. At that time it was so harmful.

The reason earlier societies first started institutionalsing male-female sex as 'marriage' was to ensure the continuance or the political dominance of their communities through a steady increase in population. The world then was a big place and could sustain many more humans than were there at that time.

As communities migrated from one place to another (e.g. the Indo-Aryans) this need to increase in numbers fast would have resulted, for the first time, in attempts to control sex between men – to further limit male energy to reproduction.

Then came Christianity and Islam – the two later religions that openly sought religious hegemony and dominance of the world. They promptly secured an order from their respective gods in order to make sex between men a sin and a crime. These were the middle stages of the disease.

The western society developed this disease to its present form "Heterosexuality', to suit the modern, 'scientific' times.

The epidemiology of Heterosexuality

Heterosexuality, in its full blown form was till recently only present in the western world, with the U.S. experiencing its most advanced stage.

The disease was however present in its crude forms in most of the civilized world for about the past 2500 years (in some cases even earlier).

With globalisation, the US through its wealth and technological power has been bombarding the rest of the world with the full blown 'heterosexual' virus.

Some of the symptoms of Heterosexuality

The symptoms of the advanced stage of the disease include the 'killing' of all male only spaces/ customs in the society which are replaced with mixed-sex spaces/ customs.

Another symptom is the incessant 'promotion', enforcement and glorification of male-female sex. Which is accompanied by silencing the voices of male-male love or its denigration.

A special symptom of a man coming from a society inflicted with heterosexuality is a strange set of reactions which include turning pink with embarrassment and cringing, at even the thought of holding another man\s hand or being too near him, especially if in public.

Some of the effects of heterosexuality

Heterosexuality makes human life miserable. It also adversely affects other species and the mother earth. Overpopulation is one of the severest effects of the disease. The world is already ready to burst with humans spreading like insects.

Of course nature gave just enough attraction towards female to the masculine male that can support the nature's pace of reproduction. Had heterosexuality been natural there would not be any use for condoms or for vasectomy or for those hazardous pills with severe side effects --- all unnatural things. Surely these are the by-products of an unnatural heterosexual society. Like innumerable others.
It's ironical. Heterosexuality was created in order to force the human population to grow much faster than their natural pace.

Today, when population itself has become a fatal problem, threatening to kill not only the human population, but the earth itself, efforts are being made to rid heterosexuality of 'procreation'. Considering the individual and social costs of maintaining an unnatural 'heterosexual' order, one wonders of its use, when it has become inimical to the basic purpose of its creation. Heterosexuality indeed has become an end in itself.

When straight men are forced to be heterosexuals, they are forced to relinquish their masculinity and since femininity is not an option (because it is so devalued and because it does not come naturally to straight men) they become hollow and diseased from within, dependant on pretentious masculinity – the heterosexual brand of fake masculinity described in the earlier article.

Violence against women is also a negative fall out of forcing (explicitly or implicitly) men into heterosexual relationships.

And of course there are those innumerable sexual diseases that inflict men reeling under heterosexuality ----- from pre-mature ejaculation to erectile dysfunctions. Satisfying women is a goal that keeps eluding men. Perhaps they should learn from those meterosexuals, sorry heterosexuals.

[QUOTE=Buddha1]Heterosexuality is unnatural, abnormal and a disease

This is not rhetoric. Whether we look at our present day society, or the ancient world --- this is the resounding message that we get. Scientifically, biologically and morally.

Man, at least straight man was never ever meant to be heterosexual.

Defining Heterosexuality

Let's clearly define heterosexuality first. The western society conveniently plays with these words to suit their own anti-men's agenda. In common parlance it is often used to simply refer to sex or sexual desire between male and female. Heterosexuality, however, is not as simple as that, nor is sexual desire for women the ownership of heterosexuals. Heterosexuality in reality is an ideology, which embodies two things:
- exaggeration of sexual desire for women to a point that nature can't healthily sustain.
- Suppression of sexual desire for men, which is equally unhealthy.

Heterosexuality means exclusive and all encompassing sexual desire for women, and an inversion to male eroticism and bonding.

you make some interesting points, many of which ive considered myself. overall i think its a bit of a mistake to attempt to define sexuality and sexual motivations in such an exacting way. just a bit of mistake. you do allow for anomaly here and there which is good thing. once you manage to define each and every possibility here youll have it!
im a hetero-sexual male. i can fully relate to the idea that men are more compatible for long term relationships, but as open as i am to peoples chosen sexual orientation, i have no desire whatsoever to share physical affection with any of my close male friends. it just not there. but the bottom line is, sex and relationships whether hetero, bi, or homosexual, are not the highest concepts and involvements humans can or in my opinion should devote their thoughts and actions to. on the contrary, if you really really want to make comparisons of humans to the rest of the animal world, yes, you can take each and every person who dedicates the most of their lives to making sex and relationships happen and use them in your comparisons for all theyre worth, which in context isnt a lot. the biological imperative is the most dominant attraction animal life, human or otherwise, have to deal with, but allowing it to take you and your life over as the main object for which you base most of youre existence is lame. it reallly lacks insight. im 37 and i could give a shit less about pursuing sex and relationships with men or women. i have goals, and interests beyond my groin and there is a infinate field of knowledge, and experience to be discovered .. but its all too apparent, that the majority of the world population is mostly oblivious to it. just look at the world population for example! so many people are like mindless slaves to sex and relationships, that they never see beyond it or if they do its only for a passing fancy while theyre in search for yet another try at love and sex. for me personally, seeing beyond it means never going back. i think somewhere in these opposing takes on reality we can find the answers to what is fundamentally wrong with humanity, and what is potential right about humanity.

.....there is no such thing as "not real", we percieved it.

You seem to be caught in the web of sexual orientations (or mores or give it whatever name you like!). I seems to be a defense mechanism and a recourse to you. I'll discuss this later.

Before that I wanted to ask you two questions.

1) Do you have clues about what makes men heterosexual?

1) Do you have clues about what makes men heterosexual?

Men are not heterosexual.
Men desire women only because they desire men.
We desire women because women can create new men.
How can men love women? Women are not like men.

HOly Apollo and HOly HOMOsex.

This is stupid. But hey fine - I can only tell you how I feel.
This is stupid. But hey fine - I can only tell you how I feel.
a.) I don’t care - for the most part. I don’t actually have to spend any time contemplating clues. I am only challenging your rhetoric - not you - I don’t know you personally.
b.) I am sexually attracted to women - not men.
c.) Your identification with your penis is overly simplistic - I have one too - and I can Identify with how your penis feels when you climax - and so what - that does not mean a heterosexual man wants to engage in sexual practices with you.
d.) You bring up sex in nature, but often in nature - it is not about bonding - it is about dominance and submission within groups (or micro-societies) in more primitive creatures; your simplistic projections do not make any sense.
e.) Part of being heterosexual is not trying to assert dominance in a relationship, but equilibrium, understanding heterosexual women - not discounting that female side of humanity.
f.) If you are attracted to men; and call yourself straight; then engage in sex with men - you are not straight; only straight acting.

I knew you would try to avoid the question. You have not answered that very important question. You seem to know what causes so-called homosexuality, even when you say its not a disease, but you don't you know what causes heterosexuality when you yourself claim to be one.

You want to engage me in a blame game and a question of who sleeps with whom, in order to avoid answering the question. I won't take the bait.
It is clear that I feel the desire to bond in an eternal bond with another man (who doesn't --- but don't start a discussion on that yet! you will have plenty of time). Whether I've slept with someone is entirely a personal thing. I'll soon come to the points you have raised.

Now I challenge you to state the cause of 'heterosexuality', not get engaged in another discussion, or beat around the bush.

An opinion is not right - nor wrong; it is an opinion; it has some valid points - but it ceases being objective when subjectively it promotes a different misconception; and it speaks from exceptions; which is what any group of personal experiences are;

These are not exceptions. These are the common perceptions about straight men across societies --- even in the heterosexual west.

Men are largely seen as people trying to run away from relationships, even when they are stereotyped as having enormous sexual drives for women..Men often try to delay getting married. They are seen as people exact opposites of women (esp. in the west). Anyone who has any understanding of masculinity knows that inspite of their sexual attraction, their different sex and gender, straight men bond with women or be intimate with them without compromising on their masculinity.

Of course then these qualities are becoming less and less visible as the pressures of heterosexualisation intensifies in the west and men are increasingly trained to suppress their masculinity to make them compatible with women.

Anyway, could it be that you are trivilising my contention because you are someone who fits in well with women (whether through training or naturally). It's all subjective. That is why you can't see the contradictions of others in a system that expects straight men to be heterosexual. Yes, no?

I agree that sexual misconceptions abound - but that is a different rhetoric to “dispel misconceptions” than to call “heterosexuality” a disease.

I am willing to admit that some straight men may have lesser compatability issus with women, but it still does not amount to heterosexuality. Why do you need to have a 'heterosexual' identity in order to love or bond with a woman?

Training, encouraging, expecting and forcing the majority of straight men, especially young men (who are the most unlikely to be compatible with women) to adopt 'heterosexual' identities or life-styles, still tantamounts to a diseased, unnatural and amoral system.

As far as sexual pressure on men? There really is a lack of preparing of young men (and women); for the deluge of hormones that come on; missing sexual education; religious falsehoods; bonding issues; consequences; etc - on this I certainly agree.

Oh Please! There is over-preparing of young men to become heterosexuals. How much more heterosexualisation do you want. Your society has already reached the limit. It starts preparing its young ones from the very childhood. Indeed, the result is demasculated, desensitized youth who haven't had a chance to learn a thing about masculinity and cannot relate with or bond with other men. All they are good for is to date women.

If heterosexuality is indeed natural, you don't need to teach it to people. The hormones do what they are supposed to do.very well. The problem is you expect strange things from the hormones – and don't let it do its work.

First off I am a straight-man; married and heterosexual.

You mean straight,and heterosexual and married.
Straight and married match. Heterosexual does not.
You realize you could as well be queer (transgender), heterosexual and married. That is more common. Estimates say, most transgendered and transexual people are 'heterosexual' (Though they too are more likely to be so-called bisexual like all of us!).

That Western ideal of the perfect pair-bonded male-female; raising a family; sharing the self sacrifices may “seem” like a “disease” to you - but it is not; problematic for sure - disease no.

I have not said marriage is a disease in itself. Though not an ideal condition for a man to be happy.

As for heterosexuality, isn't it a disease:

- How else do you explain (what you guys call) homophobia --- I'd call it heterosexism --- in a species which is basically bisexual (not as an identity…..mind you!)
- How do you explain the deluge of population which is ruining mother earth.
- How do you explain the breaking of men from each other, into artificial and unnatural sexual identities.
- How do you explain the terrible pain and suffering of people you've categorised as homosexuals.
- How do you explain the pain and suffering of straight men who choose not to leave their gender identity and have to make several sacrifices that turn them into robots more than human beings and take them away from their natural masculinity.
- How do you explain the terrible pain and suffering of transgendered and transsexual people who inspite of being the most deserving of a heterosexual status are excluded from your privileged club so that you can showcase 'heterosexuality' as masculine.

Not to mention that as population increases beyond what the nature has intended, the biological quality of human beings and the quality of life goes down.

Attempts to control population through unnatural means further mean that we destroy our fragile environment with enormous loads of non-biodegradable latex condoms. Surely, a natural thing will not be so disastrous for the nature.

Who should we blame if not heterosexuality?

Again, you were too eager to dismiss my article to pay attention to what I'm saying. You don't want to look beyond what your society has taught you about sexual identities and their definitions. And why not they bring you cheap power.

I repeat when I say heterosexuality is a disease I do not mean male-female sex. Not even male-female bonding if it is not promoted as the most preferred option of men. And male bonds are institutionalized with all their masculine glory,and importance,--- not for some deviant homosexual community, but for the male race as a whole.

so it is natural to eats ones shit?
or it is natural to have sex with ones family member?
or it is natural to eat a penis with the person whoes it is and then kill them and eat them?
All of the above have been done, so there are natural???

......All of the above have been done, so there are natural???

I rest my case.

Since, it is not natural to eat one's shit, or to have sex with one's family members, or to eat a penis with the person whoes it is and then kill them and eat them, why should it be natural to be heterosexual? .....Just because they have been done or are being done.

......why should it be natural to be heterosexual?

Let me rephrase that
.......since it is not natural to eat one's shit......., why should we be heterosexual.

I have had many bisexual, gay, whatever; male friends throughout my life (mostly in Art school; go figure?) -
I recently joined a sculptor class. It turned out to be a clay modeling thing (I'd hoped for stone and chisels). I was surprised to see there were only females in the class (about 25). I was assigned to a male class, which had only 2 students. They were both kind of feminine; one `had a girlfriend, the other married. I don't know if they are heterosexuals (those 2-5% types).

The girls were all making female sculptures. And so were the two guys. There were only a couple of male statues and they were not properly done. Feminine males, women and heterosexuals do have something in common.

The masculine and beautiful male statues of the Greeks were definitely done by straight men.

But all that you state - is the opposite of the disclaimer you start out with - “This is not rhetoric.”
The dictionary meaning of "rhetoric" is "a statement intended to influence people, but not completely sincere".
Now I may be wrong….but you have to prove my statements wrong, logically, giving reasons --- or you can ask me for 'proofs'/ evidences for my assertions, where I have not given any ---- or ask me to elaborate.

But I'm certainly not insincere. I have theorized in complete sincerity and honesty what I've observed through years of work --- not giving my personal opinion or speaking on the strengths of an oppressive and manipulative social system ---- something that cannot be said of you.

c.) Then you define heterosexuality on your terms. Merely how you feel about yourself.
Is this the way you logically discuss the validity or otherwise of a statement --- however wrong it is? Try to convert it into a sort of 'blame game' in order to avoid the real issue.
My definition is clear-cut and very to the point. The point is not whose definition it is. But whether it applies or not. If it is wrong, why can't you or someone else easily prove it wrong using a scientific method of analysis?

Do you or do you not engage in sexual practices with men or not?
Now this is really duh, and you're beginning to piss me off.
In my culture these things are considered private. I've already told you more than you have the right to know. This discussion is not about me or my personal life. Certainly not about who or when or with how many people I go to bed with, whether I'm monogamous or not……It's about people, organized lies and oppressive systems.

Whether I'm a celibate man or have sex thrice a day will not change the facts.

Judge my assertions for their own validity. PROVE ME WRONG. But you don't listen do you!


(If your bi - that’s a duh.)
(This statement is ridiculous - quite laughable.
Is that all you can say to counter my assertions.

you define heterosexuality on your terms. Merely how you feel about yourself.
You disclaim the value of long term relationships with women merely on the fact you find if difficult and that you use sex [your penis] as the relationship measuring stick.)
You make no sense - you might be ambiguously straight - or whatever you claim that is - but that only describes you; or a group - not everyone.
(One can only conclude based upon this statement - that it is you - that was pretending; and you’re not pretending anymore.)
as if - what you want (sex, male sexual bonding) - is the only thing that matters.
If you are attracted to men; and call yourself straight; then engage in sex with men - you are not straight; only straight acting.
c.) Your identification with your penis is overly simplistic - I have one too [/QUOTE
Hello! This is not about you or me. This is about men --- esp. straight men and challenging western notions. We can have a discussion only when you rise above such petty attitudes.

But if you want to debate an issue do it co-herently and logically. You sounded very 'scientific' when stating the cause of homosexuality'. Where has your scientific temperament gone when faced with having to defend heterosexuality? Do I need to repeat your earlier assertions?

[QUOTE]You bring up sex in nature, but often in nature - it is not about bonding - it is about dominance and submission within groups (or micro-societies) in more primitive creatures;
Now this is the first time you have said something that falls within the purview of logic It gives me a chance to reexamine my assertions or to back my statement with evidences.
But this is an easy one.

Scientists are now forced to admit that males form sexual bonds (amongst Chimpanzees, macaques, dolphins, etc.) because it helps them to form powerful unions, so that they can defend themselves, their territories and hunt/ gather food --- and even mating. It's now been shown that during the mating season males with powerful bonds may allow each other to mate with a female without competition. Scientists also say that they do it also purely for the fun of it and out of natural instincts. Without a powerful sexual instinct for other males, which helps them form intimacy and lifelong bonds males would end up finishing each other off. The hostility is reserved for the enemy tribe.

Are you aware that the precursor of the western civilization, the Greeks had used this male instinct beautifully and they conquered the world by institutionalizing sexual bonds between warriors?

You want to ignore all that and live in a fool's world, suit yourself.

I might add, just for your information that in primates like the bonobos and the macaque monkeys, females form strong sexual bonds, often lifelong with other females and it helps them to raise their young together without competition, to ward off predators and aggressive males.

It's funny how 'heterosexuals' have used the argument that 'it is not found in animals' for a long time against sexual bonds between men. Today, when there are proofs that it exists, you say its' immaterial.

Of course, ideally we don't have to look at the animals to know what is natural for us. We should look within us. But in an oppressive world, where the society has so obscured the truth and took us away from or own nature --- it makes sense to look at the animals to know the truth. Especially, when those holding power will not listen to or validate the feelings and experiences of the powerless.

Knowledge is power, and it's knowledge gathered from all sources that can finally liberate us.

your simplistic projections do not make any sense.
Life is actually very simple. Heterosexuality has made it extremely complex for all of us. My projections are obvious not far-fetched like that of many western scientists . I'm certainly not speaking only of the wild life. I've also spoken about human civilizations. But like always you do not listen.

e.) Part of being heterosexual is not trying to assert dominance in a relationship, but equilibrium, understanding heterosexual women - not discounting that female side of humanity.
Heterosexual men should try to understand other people than just heterosexual women. You guys have an inherent understanding of women and their ways. What you guys especially lack naturally is an understanding of straight men and masculinity.

Heterosexual men cannot relate with men and are incapable of forming meaningful or deep friendships/ bonds with them. This is another important respect in which they differ from straight men. As men are forced to be heterosexual, they lose their ability to relate with men.

that does not mean a heterosexual man wants to engage in sexual practices with you.
You have shown an unusual interest in my sexual life.(anyway I am not talking about heterosexual men, I m talking about straight men. )

f.) If you are attracted to men; and call yourself straight; then engage in sex with men - you are not straight; only straight acting.
Sure, take refuge behind western identities again!
Well, tell you what, I challenge yours and anybody else's stake to straighthood only on the basis of their heterosexuality.

Read again, carefully,
Heterosexuality is not equal to straight
And I can prove that. Easily.

I can also prove that straighthood is related more with sexual instinct for men --- even an exclusive desire for men, something that cannot be said about male-sexual desire for women. In fact, evidences suggest a relationship between male sexual desire for females to be related to being 'gay' (Queer). (It's fun to play with western identities and turn them upside down to make them make sense.)

If you are so sure of your straighthood, will you take that challenge? If you can prove otherwise, I'll apologize, say I'm not straight and leave. If I prove myself will you do the same?

Let's see you defend the honour of your manhood.

There are certain rules though:
1. We can only prove or disprove using logical analysis, citing historical and scientific studies, personal observations also count.
2. Western concepts and values will not be automatically deemed to be 'facts' or the starting points. You will have to prove/ back up with logical analysis any assumptions that you make- even if your society accepts them as gospel truths.
3. We will be spared information about your sexual life or tastes or that of your family members.

Then we will see who is straight acting and who is for real.

Nor do you address a women’s (or families) perspective in any way
Family is a social phenomenon and can adapt to changing human values --- especially if these values are based on our true nature. Heterosexual families in itself are not important. In my society the kind of nuclear family America holds as ideal are considered the sign of breaking down of morals. We used to have joint families where the male female relationship was not the supreme relationship around which the whole society revolves. Parents , siblings etc. had a much greater importance. In your society all rights starts and end at heterosexual relationships. Others are just coincidental.( In any case societies like the Greeks had male-female-children families too and they still accommodated a man's need for another man and beautifully put it to human use). What is important is human welfare --- one which is in tandem with the nature inside and outside of us.

It's true that I'm primarily concerned with men's liberation --- particularly that of the straight males, But I'm positive that nature has synchronised everything, if we only trust it and live as close to our valid natural instincts as possible, everyone's natural needs can be taken care of.

In all probability, it's also an assumption that women naturally want lifelong relationships with men. Though I can't speak about them with the authority that I can speak about straight men --- not only because I'm straight myself but also because I've worked with a large populatin of straight men on these issues.

or cause; for heterosexuality? Why would I have to do that?
In a previous post you had very confidently, matter of factly and in elaborate scientific jargon described causes of the 'homosexual''anomaly'. It's only fair that you're asked to do the same with 'heterosexuality'.

It's almost like you’re quoting from the bible. You're basically saying that it happens on it's own, it's biology there is no cause.

Certainly not a very clear or scientific explanation. Shall I quote your earlier statement on 'homosexuality.

Unless of course the genetic anomaly is carried by the other 50% - women.
And this gay quality is a combination of at least 4 things.
a.) Inheritance through women; because survivability is not an issue; people dominate the planet already.
b.) Fetal development; all fetuses are inherently non-specific (female); prior to gonads having hormones applied; and male sexual differentiation occurring.
c.) Genetic expression - genes don’t just turn on and off; they are expressive. That means there is myriad of ways to be male.
d.) Socialization.

It certainly exposes your motives. To show so-called 'homosexuality' as an anomaly, so that you can feel secure in your 'straight' identify as a heterosexual.

What you assert does not make sense
The problem is you are unable to prove my assertions wrong.

Alternate facts and opinions......
The world can't be run according to your opinions or mine. We need to justify what we are saying. I'll show you how you can prove assertions wrong point by point:

1.) Homosexuality has always existed. But in past centuries, it was considered as abnormal occasional behavior, not an exclusive identity. It was thought that some people occasionally practiced sodomy, although it was condemned by religion and by law,
a) Homosexuality has never existed before 1880 (pardon me if I have the year wrong), when it was first coined as a clinical term for a disease. Exposes behavioral science as a 'heterosexual' institution.
b) From the Greeks times( which celebrated love between straight men), compulsive receptive anal intercourse as practiced by some third gender males has consistently been looked down upon as unmanly, and later as abnormal and in the past some centuries, a disease.
c) For this reason, straight men stopped practicing receptive anal sex openly. However penetrative sodomy was never looked down upon, other forms of non-penetrative sexual contacts happened routinely between straight men and were considered inconsequential – not even visible. But men were widely believed to be just sexual and a penetrator status was actually considered a manly thing. An attitude which still exists even in the heterosexual west.

but they had no idea that one could be exclusively homosexual. The term homosexual did not exist.
Obviously, since there was no concept of sexual orientation. Have you ever thought, that if sexual orientation is such a natural and obvious concept and if indeed only a few men (with anomaly) have sexual feelings for men, why didn't any non-western society --- not even one, come up with a name for it or acknowledged the concept in any form.

In my society, inspite of 10 years of hard selling and gay activism by some westernised gays, there are no takers for the 'gay' identity apart from the 'westernised' third gender males, who havejumped upon the identity. Men here have less inhibited sex with other men but don't consider themselves 'homosexual'. Of course they don't consider themselves heterosexual or bisexual either.

2.) The word “gay” was adopted (in the 70’s) to promote an identity counter to the negative and overly impersonal scientific sounding term “homosexual.”
Yes, and it was started and continued by the third gender (transgendered). For a long time straight men kept out of it. (Most still do) till the society became overbearingly heterosexual, isolating men on the basis of their lack of obvious desire to court women.

3.) Society has/does possess a discriminatory position on homosexuality. In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association finally voted homosexuality out of its list of mental illnesses. Most discriminatory positions form from religious intolerance and misconception. Do a Google-search with: facts, homosexual and lifestyle, and you will find almost all hits are religious commentary.
You are right about the religion thing. But that does not give credence to the sexual orientation theory. Just because it has been accepted in the west doesn’t mean it's true. And no one can see it better than an outsider who has done a comparative study of both cultures. Almost all the institutions of the heterosexual society promote, propagate and enforce heterosexuality, including homosexuals and feminists.

4.) Same sex attraction and action upon such - indicate a range of about 2% to 5%, in men/women. While a low percentage - this is a significant number in a country of 300 million people = about 15 million +/-.
Even the manipulative western science acknowledges that upto 10% of any population is homosexual (sic). What they don’t' tell you is that about 10% of any population is heterosexual (sic). But anyone who has worked on sexuality will not dispute that.
Indeed, even psychologists (part of your heterosexual set-up) have had to admit that man is basically bisexual --- starting from Freud to Alfred Kinsey. The heterosexual society coolly keeps sidelining such theories, while highlighting any theory that seeks to portray sexual desire for men as 'deviant', 'rare' and 'queer',all of them basing their study on third gender. Psychologists even have to sheepishly admit that all adolescents go through a homosexual (sic) phase. That was the least they could do to trivialize it --- to call it a phase.

If you have five teeny-weeny, feminine guys attacking you at the gate, will you bring the heavy artillery and involve every single infantry and every single weapon that you have to defend your country. The magnitude of your offensive is a clear indication that your real enemy is neither small in number like your 2%-5% (or even 10%) suggests nor is it queer as your identities suggest. The enemy is larger than you, and extremely strong --- like in macho --- which is a straight quality.

If indeed sexual desire for men is limited to the 2-5% homosexuals and a couple of percentage of bisexuals, why does your society worry whether they get married or if they are accepted by the society or included in the army. After all such a small population is going to do no harm to the rest of the population because they're 'naturally immune' (heterosexuals).

Why then do you worry about 'gays' proselytizing?

I'm sure you have no answers to my questions, so you'll try to escape by providing 'alternate facts' – the lies dished out by your society since Christianity came about.

Let me also point out how manipulative your scientists are. While reporting a 'spectacular' finding that 1 in 10 sheep is 'gay' (how callously they use human classifications on the animals) they hide the fact that 1 in 10 is actually heterosexual.

In her book "Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in nature and people, Joan Roughgarden – professor of evolutionary ecology and geophysics at Stanford University, reports that "Sheep are notoriously gay, engaging in frequent anal sex". Note that she states that there are "effeminate males" that prefer to be with the ewes and dislike gay sex. Thus, it's clear that the heterosexual sheep has the brain of a woman – not the sheep who exclusively mates with the males, as speculated by the media.

5.) Proselytizing for a public gay agenda - is as wrong as proselytizing for the public adoption of (10 commandments or) America as a Christian Nation.
You can proselytize for a religious order --- but even that is difficult and Christians often resort to bribing, threatening and other unfair means.

But you cannot proselytize for something that needs an inner drive. If men do not have sexual feelings for other men, no one can proselytize them.
Also, unlike male-female sex, there is no power or straight identity to be gained as a reward for going against their natural instincts.

But let's say you're right about the gay proselytizing thing .If I am to be accused of proselytizing, at least its for the straight cause.

However, it exposes your fear. You understand, as did most religious people not so long ago, that such feelings are widespread amongst men, and mere justifying it or talking about it would make all men want to engage in it.

Well they were right, only the clever heterosexual society found a way out by imprisoning sexual desires within sexual identities and talking about them only in the context of those identities. With strategic power politics and divide and rule policy, it has worked well..

By the way, if proselytizing is wrong what do you feel about enforcing heterosexuality on straight men?

How about forcing heterosexualization on vulnerable3 third world societies.

6.) The predisposition towards attraction most likely is physical; whether genetic or hormonal during fetal development/puberty. With so much assumed outside pressure to not be “gay” something must be tipping the scale; and it is most likely the genetic expression of human sexuality - not falling exactly into one area or the other in the 2% to 5% affected (both female and male). Therefore if same sex attraction exists - then it is most likely natural in all cases.
Yeah sure, your theory that while heterosexuality is normal and biological, sexual desire for men is abnormal and needs a cause, while heterosexuality apparently doesn't.

- this theory doesn't apply in other species, and there is no reason why it should happen in ours.
- How come so many societies successfully carried on --- some since the beginning of human race to this day --- running primarily on sexual bonds between men, limiting sex with women just to procreation?
- How come Greeks believed that men need women only for procreation, and they wished even that could be done away with.
- How do you explain an ancient Afghan saying which goes: Women are for procreation, Men for pleasure.
Afghans are a macho warrior race.

A rare, abnormal phenomenon cannot command so much importance and respect that too without the force of religions like Christianity. In fact inspite of a hostile religion like Islam.

- Do you think the majority of men in all these cultures described above were living with an anomaly (and you are not!) or that they were all feminine.
- How do you explain all those western young straight men calling up counseling lines or posting on net, wondering (while they know they're straight), why do they still feel eroticism towards males, worrying to hell, if they're not really gay…..
- How come these macho so-called heterosexual men sexually abuse vulnerable men when they have power over them and an occasion which will not give them a 'homosexual' label --- like during hazing in universities, in prison institutions, with POWs, etc. The first thing they want to do is to strip you and ask you to masturbate before them. Surely if they abhorred male eroticism so much as portrayed by your culture (including porn films) then they should puke at even the thought of this. Any explanations – you heterosexuals are usually ready with an explanation, however far-fetched it is.

7.) The past (ancient civilizations; etc) was not some kind of ancient gay or bisexual paradise.
Certainly the Greeks and other ancient civilisations frowned upon gays *(feminine men who exclusively sought receptive anal intercourse thinking of their anus as vagina!). So gays have been oppressed for long.

However, straight men did have a great time during the Greek period.

Gay men and heterosexual queers however led normal lives, actually better than normal lives, in the very early periods. Indeed they were the priests and healers, and were considered two spirited --- not sick, as your western society does today.

8.) Biologists believe that monogamy evolved in those species whose fathers could help rear the offspring (e.g., birds). Biologists have observed birds to be the most monogamous animals in the world--much more so than humans. Over ninety percent of bird species pair up exclusively to mate and rear chicks together because both mother and father are equally able to provide food for the chicks.
Yes, but humans ain't birds, are we? We are mammals and will have similarities with other mammals, esp. primates.

The percentage of (non-human) primates that are monogamous is, however, considerably higher perhaps as high as 15%.
Can you name some of those primates and give a little detail about their sexual lives including monogamy?

Most other mammals practice either promiscuity or polygamy.
Eventhough I'd not use the same terminology, basically, what you're saying is right. But it does not prove that mammals are ever heterosexuals. All male mammals have sex with males as well as females. Sex with females is basically related with procreation.

I've already proved my points about mammals/ primates and their committed lifelong bonds with same-sex, while temporary, non-attached sex acts with opposite sex.


10.) There is difference between "social monogamy," where mating pairs work together to raise their young, and "genetic monogamy," where parents are faithful sex partners.
???

11.) Social monogamy is relatively common among monogamous species, but genetic monogamy is more an exception. Overall, only ten percent of the birds and mammals that seem to mate for life are actually faithful to their partners.
This seems to contradict you earlier assertion that over 90% of birds pair up exclusively. There have been studies that have shown that although birds were previously believed to be monogamous, they are actually not so. Monogamy whether with a male partner or a female is however, an entirely different topic and I'm all for it.

12.) Do these biological explanations justify infidelity - notions of monogamy - or notions of heterosexuality? No. Use caution when drawing simplistic conclusions about human biology from animal studies. Use caution when drawing simplistic conclusions about human-beings as a whole.
Of course they have nothing to do with heterosexuality. They are stupid western/ Christian creations.

Do you or do you not engage in sexual practices with men or not?
I hope this is the last time I hear of it, lest I loose my patience.

You should simply rest period - this is pure stupidity.
I should probably not have bothered to answer a 'hate' post like that of Jolly Rogders, because afterall I'm here for a serious debate not mud slinging or abusing.matches. But when you can win, it's hard to resist the temptations.

As for you, why do you have so much attachment to a label which is unreal, oppressive for others and for the self, biased, bigoted, harmful......

Why do you need a label to bond with women, if that's what you'd rather do! Why do you feel scared without the label.

Why do you need a label to bond with women, if that's what you'd rather do! Why do you feel scared without the label.

Without the label, you don't know what you're getting.

just go to www.thisisnatural.com

what is dat man you dumb french froggy

Jai Saraswati Maa

The Open and Free western society --- a blatant lie

For more than two thousand years, the society has taken extreme measures to tie down men to participate in the reproduction process and the raising of children. Given the close bonds that the human male shared with each other that was virtually impregnable, the society sought to achieve its goals in two ways, which were very effective:
- By de-institutionalising male sexual bonds and making them socially shameful
- By forcing men to marry and produce children.
Amongst the measures that were taken to assure this, the most effective measure was to change the rules of masculinity to accomodate "marriage" and a "disdain for open sexual desire for men".

Even though these measures were unnatural for men, and hard on them, men have borne their oppression for more than two thousand years, primarily because the society did give them a leeway --- a breathing space. This was done by way of a wonderful phenomenon called a 'cover' or a (social) 'purdah' --- something that does not exist anymore in the western so-called 'open' societies. This means that men had a lot of freedom to do a lot of natural male stuff behind the scenes (i.e. in private) as long as they publicly upheld the social norms of masculinity --- i.e. got married, produced children and pretended not to have a sexual interest in straight men (sexual interest in third gender males was allowed).

To be more specific, the society allowed men to express their sexual need for men under a cover --- without talking about it or acknowledging it in anyway. Two straight men who liked each other would just get together on some pretext --- and there were plenty of pretexts --- and then have some mutual fun. If there was an intense feeling for each other it may be expressed in terms of deep friendship that could last a lifetime. No one else in the society would suspect anything --- it was so normal for two men to be intimate with each other --- even two men living with each other or sleeping in the same bed was no big deal. And even if someone suspected they would look the other way, because for one thing the members of the society had an enormous respect for this 'purdah' and second that the issue of sex or love between two straight men was absolutely unspeakable (however, not un-do-able in private)

Numerous such committed bonds flourished without anyone ever knowing about them. Some becoming famous as an example of true friendship.

There'd be no acceptance or acknowledgment of a sexual liking for each other or (especially) of men in general, even between each other. Sex between men was the theme of innumerable men's jokes. The sexual intimacy would persist under some pretexts (of which there were many). The strongest pretext would be an absence of women. And in a society where men and women lived separate lives (in keeping with their nature), such pretexts were aplenty. Two friends cum lovers would eat, sleep, and do everything else together, like two normal straight men did.

That there was no such thing as 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' (though there was a third gender passive male) made it easier for men too.

However, any acknowledgment of what was going on between the two men by one of them would amount to breach of a basic rule --- something that would make the continuance of the relationship impossible, unless the one 'breaking' the implicit contract takes on the 'lesser male's' role.(This lesser male role bordered on the third gender male – today's homosexual). And the relationship would become an unequal one, where the other man would keep his pretense of not having any real interest in the man and just doing it to bide his time or as a favour to the other man.

Therefore in most cases men would not even think of crossing their limits. They would live out their love behind this purdah, while performing the social duties of men at the same time and upholding social values on the outside. Take away this purdah and the two men will just kill the relationship and pretend as if nothing ever happened. The forebearers of the modern heterosexual society knew that, and did just that --- took away this age old male cover.

Another thing that helped men in those days was that "marriage" back then did not mean 'bonding' with women. There was absolutely no need to love or be romantic to your wife. In fact someone who bonded too closely with his woman was laughed at as being 'unmanly'. Relationships between men and women in marriage were limited to occasional sex and the family matters --- ration, children, relatives, etc. Men spent most of their time outside of the house with other men.

And as far as male-female relationships outside marriage were concerned the society was extremely hostile to it. You would better not be seen even talking to a woman that you are not related to or married to. A man or woman may never do such a thing as even touch each other's hands in public.

******

The nature of earlier male oppression had allowed men to be themselves under this 'purdah', and gave men a breathing space. Indeed men found it extremely distasteful to talk about sexual desire for men even in private. However amongst the men there was a tacit acceptance that all men shared this sexual desire to be with other men, but this desire must not be spoken of. Lifting of this cover would mean instant death of this freedom and men turning into 'heterosexuals' so fast as if by magic. All the male eroticism would vanish into thin air.

The modern western society that claimed to be free and fair was in reality extremely hostile to sexuality between men, and so without showing the least of concern for men:

- came down heavily on this cover men had enjoyed for centuries and took it off at one sweep, making the men go helter skelter seeking refuge under a 'heterosexual' identity.

- While the society claims to be fair and equal, it actually intensifies, makes more sophisticated and institutionalises the oppresion of male need for other men. This makes sure that the heat is turned on on men in full force as the social cover is lifted –lifted in the name of 'openness' and 'freedom' Men are forcefully exposed, become vulnerable, and are then isolated through a pseudo-scientific concept known as "Sexual orientation".

- At the same time the society does away with all pretexts or social opportunities that men used to bond with men. It basically:

o finished off all male only spaces in the society. So now there will be girls sitting in male gyms, schools will be co-ed, women will join the army amidst men, and so on. Everything that has to do with men will be a male-female thing --- from T.V. news casts to sports events to male prisons to nurses in male hospital wards.

o re-organises the society into mixed gender spaces that are extremely against men bonding with each other. Such spaces isolate men who do bond with other men as 'homosexual' (i.e. a third gender category that was earlier meant only for the feminine male who was exclusively passive).

o Makes bonding with females a compulsory thing for men – propagates is as a basic natural trait of men. Ironically, bonding with women was considered an extremely womanly and deplorable thing for a straight man. It was fit only for the third gender male in the past. Marriages now become love-marriages and customs such as dating are introduced, that all men have to go through. In an environment where women are available a dime a dozen, it is impossible to claim absence of women as a pretext for being with men.

o Unlike the past, physical intimacy between man and woman in public becomes acceptable and 'normal' while between men becomes almost 'banned'. So while man and woman kiss each other in public --- even two brothers can't hold hands in public without causing raised heckles. Kissing between men --- a common form of greeting in the past disappears as a practice replaced by kissing between "opposite sexes".

o Glorifies sexually aggressive women who in earlier societies were stigmatised as 'whores' as the ideal woman. At the same time stigmatises a male being too close to another in a mixed gender setting as a 'homo' --- even if he is masculine. In the past it was the most normal straight male behaviour.

o The society no longer glorifies or celebrates friendships between men, which are always viewed with suspicion. It's a clear signal that the society wants to break men from each other so as to disempower them.

It is no surprise that as societies turned from the traditional order where men had a social cover, to the modern one that claims to be open and free, men have always opposed this openness in the beginning. Men instinctively knew that talking about issues of sex between men is not going to be good for them, because it will in the end be made inaccessible to them. While talking about sex with women openly will take away their pretenses thus intensifying their pressures.

The modern western heterosexual society is the exact opposite of an open and free society. If at all, it is a skewed way of opening up.

******

The freedom that the earlier straight men enjoyed behind the scenes was limited but was enough that prevented men from revolting for two thousand years. Indeed the modern 'open' world looks down upon this 'purdah' as hypocrisy. But this hypocrisy helped the society maintain an unnatural order for its supposed gains for so long and made it easier on the victims (i.e. men). Today's society has intensified the oppression of men several times, without giving them the leeway of this 'hypocrisy'. All this in the name of being 'open'.

What remains to be seen is how long will the male race which is now driven to an extreme corner continue to take things lying down. Will it finally revolt in a big way or will it forever accept an inferior and subservient position to women?

******

I would see it this way, if all people were homosexuals we wouldn't survive as a species so therefore I'd conclude it isn't natural for nothing in nature wants to stop its own species from survival.

hmm i read a bunch of this and got sort of lost when i realized this was the first post i made in sciforums. i think.

at this point i think sexual orientation is imprinted or conditioned with or by some particular pathology. i see heterosexual and homosexual to be dysfunctional in the same way, that each are adverse to sexual affection with a particular gender, and the more healthy of the possible orientations is bi-sexual. perhaps heterosexuallity isnt natural but neither is fearing and repulsing same sex affection, which strangely seems one of the main inspiration for homosexuality to exist. heterosexuality is no more natural than homosexuality but it has on its side the potential for procreation. if same sex affection sharing were unnatural then what explains the affections a father shows his infant or young boy? that comes to an end after social pressure and conditioning coerce a boy away from that affection with his father and for the heterosexual father the practice is banned by previous social conditioning and when the boy developes into puberty and begins to express himself as man.
i tend to think that heterosexuality for a boy is inforced at a young age in groups of boys by threats of violence thru fear of being named gay, and being forced out of his circle of friends, and i tend to think in some or many cases homosexuality in males at least is inspired by the fear and total lack of comprehension of the female in contrast to the comfort and comradery they feel for their male friends combined with some repulsion for the heterosexual males in general. shrug,