Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

The only pressures on sexuality I know of during the times of the Greeks was to get married and produce a children as you got older.

There were restrictions on social interactions between men and women. But that was required because the society had forced men and women together into one society --- especially through marriage, and this meant that in order to maintain their natural freedom and growth, they needed some restrictions in their interaction --- especially when male-female sex, or rather reproduction had already started to be seen as proof of 'manhood'.

All the contemporary traditional societies that I have seen or read about, that allow male-male relationships in the form of what the west calls "bisexuality" have just marginally allowed male-male bonds. They are either tolerated behind a social screen or if in some cases allowed openly then only when the person also fulfills his social duty of contributing children to the community (through marriage!). There is absolutely no pressure on men to bond with men. It's just tolerated. And still, I don't know of one so-called 'bisexual' society where men have not favoured male-male bonds or sex over that of male-female bonds, even sex.

The Greeks believed that "If god had not made reprouduction only through male-female sex, women were completely redundant for men".

The Afghans believed (and so do other macho cultures in Pakistan and India) that "Sex with women is for procreation, while sex with men is for pleasure".

The brave Samurai warriors married only because they had to. They never shared an emotional relationship with their wives. Love could only happen with another warrior.

See, whether its the Greek society or any other society accepting male-male bonds, the pressure has always been to get married and to produce children. There have never been pressures to have sex with men. If you know better, please enlighten us.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Before parroting Light's lines, I think you should get the post where I used these papers (There are no published papers to begin with!) as proof of my contentions.

I mentioned about my work as an introduction, people can accept it or disbelieve me, it does not effect the validity of my arguments (afterall, if I say the sun is round, it is there for everyone to see and examine --- ditto when I say that the sun is square!), and I am by no means obliged to supply my true identity. How many of you have used your real name or addresses etc. on these forums? I thought my anonymity was guaranted and respected in these forums.

Giambatista doesn't know whether to trust me about my work or not. But that does'nt stop him from using or discarding the contents of my posts for their own worth.

Heterosexuality is in power, and challenging it can affect one's safety negatively. I am not even disclosing the name of my country because you never know --- the vested interests can use violence against my countrymen in the west. Who knows? Why should I take chances, when it is not required? When it is really required, I'll not hesitate? But not because some crooks force me to!

I had mentioned about my publications and the papers I presented in several conferences, in a totally different context, and matter of factly --- when discussing how science is not the sole property of 'scientists'. This was triggered by another trolling attempt by Light, at that time it was a demand for an 'external proof' or 'links' supporing my evidences. (Now that I have given external links and proofs, he wants my published papers which don't exist).

I think before parroting Light's line you should have verified the things for yourself. You have proved yourself to be a disgruntled trouble maker yourself. You have clearly shown that you can fall as low as that troll 'light'!

And the fact that you're again wasting this thread space by making unreasonable demands (only trying to appear just this time!) shows that you can't for the life of you, prove me wrong. But my contentions bother you, so you must (as you have yourself admitted) by hook or by crook stop me!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are misleading us again to suit your unreasonable style of debate, and this casts doubt on your integrity.

It is easy to label anything that you don't like as "unreasonable, faulty logic and haphazard thinking". These things are subjective. Clearly there are other people who don't think so.

If you are right, you will still use logic, evidences and science to prove someone who is lying out of his hat, wrong!

After all I have stated several times that I am not making it a prestige issue, and will gladly change my statments or accept I'm wrong whenever someone proves me wrong! And I have done that too.

Clearly, you too know deep down that I'm speaking the truth, and the unlimited power and the undeserved superiority you've enjoyed for so long is unreasonable and not 'natural' (i.e. not provided by the nature!). You don't want to be dislocated from the cozy 'straight' identity that you've undeservedly occupied.

Therefore, you don't dare to try to prove me wrong, preferring to waste our time instead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no conclusive proof of any of the above.

But then what else is new. The western heterosexual man has always tried to misrepresent history and shown earlier man as a copy of himself.

Of course, they also show ancient humans as 'heteroseuxals' living in man-woman families as in marriage.

And they show animals likewise --- but they can't pull that wool on our eyes anymore, because a non-heteroseuxal man has exposed the lies.

Not let me take the above point by point:
1) Removal of all competitor humans. e.g Neanderthal

Even if this is true, there is nothing 'unnatural' about it. It was just a natural selection --- that who was powerful survived. No one used atom bombs to destroy the other.

But I doubt this theory. What could have been the reasons for humans to destroy other close species. I mean so many different species of primates have co-existed for such a long time. There is no evidence that Neanderthals presented any threat to the survival of modern humans.

2) Destruction of the majority of large mammals.
Absolutely no proof. Not the ancient humans. In all likelihood the day man started human civilisation, and brought in the marriage institution, he became greedy. He started getting away from nature. But destruction or extinction of other animals or mammals did not come about until the advent of science. (One of my favourite theories is the close relation between human beings getting away from nature, heterosexuality, religion and science as we know it --- they are all interrelated and reflect man's unreasonable greed!).

3) Deforestation of large swathes of temeperate zone
The ancient human being was incapable of doing that! Though he did destroy forests to some extent to build its towns --- like in the times of the Greeks, even these towns accomodated nature (forests) within them. Besides they used to be way to small and unpolluted to affect nature in any big way. It was not until heterosexuality and science came that man started deforestation and industrialisation at a large scale. They are all connected. But that's my opinion, till I prove it on a different thread.

4) Desertification of scrub and savannah.
Again its just a speculation --- trying to see the ancient humans in one's own copy.

 

Bhuddah1:

How should men feel?
Are there any exceptions to your assertions?
When is a man telling the truth about how they feel?
Why would a man lie about how they feel if indeed they would?

Thanks

c20

 

What I said is true. When I say you need to get your brain in action, I say so because I believe that it is too much corrupted by your own convictions. Your philosophy of life tells me that you don't have enough baggage in the field of philosophy and how this is entangled in science. If you see this as an insult, that's a shame. We're all here on earth to learn each and every day. The problems begin when we think we have learnd enough or understood something (Some Thing).
You talk about 'evidence' and 'science' all the time as if it were easy and straight forward things (a good place to read up: http://www.galilean-library.org/library.html.) Yet, after all your "evidence" which you fail to present in a coherent fashion (which is btw also part of the science procedure), no real debate has followed and your attitude is part of the problem. You can't sell your product because your marketing strategy is agressive and unattractive. Hence, your product has now reached a level over sheer unpopularity amongst people here. I suggest, and I say suggest, that all your threads are deleted and that you start a new one in which all the evidence is bundled like it should be (I guess you can copy/paste a lot). In the current state, not one single post is going to lead to any benefits for no one. Show that you're a man: thus use less words

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Show that you too are willing to learn.

 

I'll answer these queries as if they were asked in earnest.

I think overall, if we honestly cared about how men really feel and want to find that out, we should be against any kind of pressures in any direction. To deny that these pressures exist, smacks of ulterior motives. It's like saying there is no such thing as a sun.

How should men feel?
While admitting that to be in society one has to make some compromises and adjustments --- men should feel as they their inner voice tells them to. The problem is most men have lost touch with that inner voice. For that matter most men have forgotten how to feel. And its not only about sexual feelings. It's about feelings in general. Men are allowed to feel only three feelings: Sex (only with women!), anger and humour.

Men are systematically trained to be unemotional. The process involves denigrating men when they express their feelings. social masculinity plays an important role in exerting this pressure too. So much so that man starts distrusting his feelings, starts suppressing them, and starts using only his brain. Thus the capacity of the man to 'feel' is seriously mutilated by the society --- and that includes all men (but then so does the repression of same-sex feelings).

When I say 95% of men have a sexual need for other men, it automatically means that 5% don't have that need. Now whether this lack of attraction is causeed by social reasons or biological may be a matter of another debate.

When is a man telling the truth about how they feel?
Although it is very difficult to tell, men don't tell the truth about these matters as a general rule. In my opinion, they may be telling the truth, when tthey really don't seem to care about the power that male-female bonds bring, and are not apt to use the fake social power either. Male-female bonds are a matter of natural need not a source of social power for them. And to your credit you do seem to be one of those men.

Why would a man lie about how they feel if indeed they would?
You mean why would a man lie about his feelings if he does not feel them? The answer is simple because of the innumerable pressures, primarily the pressures of social masculinity.

But if you mean that "why would a man lie about how they feel if indeed they feels it (lack of attraction for men or bonding needs for women)" --- If they indeed feel that way, then of course they are not lying. But then how do you tell. If:
1. 95% of men do have such same-sex feelings, and
2. the number of men who claim to have no such feelings far exceed 5%
3. And we know that as a rule men lie about such feelings,

Then there is a good reason to believe that many of these men are plain and simple lying (unless they are really removed from their natural instincts and have mutilated these feelings beyond recognition).

 

You clearly don't know anything about these subjects.
Especially point (1) I can be sure (I have studied this quite extensively) that you are talking great great nonsense, which is only soothed in a pub where the typical male is giving his sacred opinion on every and anything without really knowing anything about it.

Deforestation of Greece and the islands: all because of men introduced sheeps and goats in the regions
I could elaborate some more, but what is the point? This is were I quit.

 

But can't you apply the same logic/ criteria to yourself before you start to judge me like this. I'm not saying that I'm perfect, but you're assuming that you are. The best way will be to have an enriching discussion which may teach both of us new things if we do it with an open mind. The point is -- are you willing to consider another point of view from what you've always thought was true. Or do you think you know enough!

Just because my philosophy does not match yours does not mean that I don't have it. I think this is pure arrogance.

I started life with much the same 'philosophies', 'information' and beliefs as you and others who oppose (or support) me have. It's the unique nature of my work which gave me an opportunity to learn something altogether different (though I must say I'm not the only one to consciously learn these things --- but I'm perhaps at the point in time when it is time to bring it up). And I learned it because I had an open mind. What I learned went totally against what I was taught and trained for. And I have often paid dearly for speaking the truth --- even paid with my job. But I really care for the truith --- because I see it related intricately with the rest of man's oppression. I can't live with the burden of knowing this important but hidden truth and not sharing it with others or not challenging the powerful oppressors with this information.

That's my philosophy of life, and I don't see how it is any inferior to those of others.

 

Good that you brought it up.

It is not easy to bring something up in a coherent fashion, when the moment you start your thread, you get 25 posts telling you 'you're a fool, idiot, liar, bigoted, gay, show your papers, and so on. And then I have to deal with them in another 30 posts. Then I get a breather and post one evidence. Then follows another round of the same you're an idiot, fool, etc. stuff by completely new set of people. And of course there are trollers like Light.

Funny you should talk about scientific procedures. I think people like Light and Huwy should stop calling themselves scientists. They are the ones who have defamed science.

 

I beg your pardon. I think you have not reviewed the situation well at all. A lot of debate happens before the evidences arrive. But they are mostly like "you fool, you idiot, why are you doing this? Why don't you accept you're gay? Have you had sex with a man? (Man! discussing things with scientists is not as easy and stragithforward as I thought!). And as soon as the evidences arrive there is complete silence. Not because my selling strategy is weak. I'm not here to sell anything. Noone is forced to bother about my threads if its a subject that does not interest them.

People avoid discussing the evidences because they know the evidences clearly support my contentions. I've worked long enough and know what I'm talking about. Don't take me lightly.

Otherwise people who waste hours and hours and pages and pages of threadspace to discuss non-related issues, can easily spend a few minutes to show me how I'm wrong.

Anyway, there is a silence of a few days after I've furnished the evidences, and as soon as the page turns and they can avoid having to consider the evidences, people are back again with "you liar, you fool!"

If by people here you mean the trouble makers, well, they have reasons to be angry --- what I'm saying takes away their fragile social masculinity which they had got in a platter at the expense of the more deserving ones. They have reasons to fret. These voices are the loudest here becasue they are in power. They have reason to shout and refuse to listen to reason.

That is the way of the world (another philosophy!). Whenever you try to bring change, those who stood to benefit will fight it tooth and nail. Only after they lose and quiten down will then the others --- the majority come forward. Till then we will have to reconcile with the unpopularity of these threads with the "people here"!

Let me first thank you for your suggestion for it seems sincere.

I have some important reasons for dividing the issue into different threads. One is (was) of course to organise the threads properly (nevermind that trollers and other disruptive posts have made sure that they become a mess!) But an even more important reason is the strategy of those supporting the "heterosexual ideology" to Ignore. You get everything under one thread space (they are really different issues) and it will become a greater mess, and will be much easier for these forces to ignore the individual points --- which I think are extremely important.

When you have each point as the head of a different thread, its not easy to ignore. And that's probably what's bothering some people. Besides it helps me to concentrate on one issue at a time, as well as to organise it.

Therefore, let this be and please bear with me.

Depends on what you consider a 'benefit'. I have tried to make things easier by providing a list of the evidenes I'm giving in the beginning of each thread. And that makes things really easy. People can now just click on the list in order to avoid reading through loads and loads of troll material.

Clever, clever, trying to manipulate me by bringing manhood! Isn't this what I'm fighting against. Manipulation of male behaviour by arbitrarily defining manhood. I'm here to change the rules of manhood not to follow them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As far as being short is concerned, yes that is a big drawback of mine. I'm too occupied to work on that now. But this problem is also partly because I have to do a lot of explanation, and can't afford to give just one liners. In fact I find them irritating and arrongant.

I'm willing to learn for sure, only I have'nt met many people here capable of teaching me. To be able to teach you have to be selfless. For men too busy trying to bring me down in order to save their own status, it is futile to expect them to teach you. But I 'm taking my lessons alright!

 

The problem is that people who have something to say, don't have patience or energy or interest to carry through a discussion. And those who don't have anything real to say have all the time in the world to bother you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Derogatory... hmm... this coming from you? Shut up isn't all that derogatory.
How am I being discriminatory? I'm not telling you to shut up because you're gay, (I even have 2 bi friends), I'm telling you to shut up because you're annoying.

 

Repeatedly I find your statements, made as if of self-evident facts, run counter to my own experience, observation and acquired knowledge. Some examples

I am not denying that all sorts of pressures exist on all of us, from a diversity of directions, of varying strengths, and often conflciting intentions. But I have seen no evidence of pressures you claim for men to be heterosexual, other than the obvious instinctive one derived from our genetic heritage.

Agreed. And I feel decidedly heterosexual. Most males that I know (and most females) feel exactly the same way.

Excuse me. Who are these shadowy figures who allegedly decide what I am allowed to feel. I can't see them. I am bewildered, utterly, by your fatuous claim that 'men are allowed only three feelings'. Personally I have felt joy, amusement, wonder, excitement, fear, despair, curiosity, fascination, terror, happiness, sorrow, delight and frustration. And that was just today. I think it is time you grew up.

Once again you must not get upset when I say you are talking nonsense. To avoid such accusations just stop talking nonsense. Men are trained to conceal their emotion. Not to place it on public display. I would accept that was true - today, in the west, it a rapidly vanishing attribute. Concealing your emotion is quite different from being unemotional.

As an aside I find it amusing that when I and Light and others display our emotion openly, by lambasting your stupidity, you condemn us. I would have thought you would have welcomed this revolt against the suppression of our emotions.

Where is your evidence for this? If you have posted it before, just put a link here. Perhaps I am one of that mysterious 5%.

This is what you claim. Prove it. My experience direct and indirect does not support it. That does not mean I am right, it means I need to see some damn good evidence to be convinced.

 

It amazes me that you good people allow addle-coved missionaries like Buddha1 annoy you. Unreasonable people are not worthy of attention.

 

It allows me to practice rhetoric and a self-righteous humility.

 

LOL

Nice.

 

Have fun with yourself guys. Just don't call yourself a free and fair society!

 

We aren't a society. And if we are no one that I know claimed we were free and fair. You chose to post here. You chose to make startling claims in an inept way. You are disappointed by the reaction you got. Objectively your ideas probably received more attention than they deserved.

Answer me this Bhudda1, what is it with 'you people' - yes I'm categorising here. The Bhudda1s who have 'found the answer', the CraterChains, the RobertJSs. Those who have 'come up with a theory'. One that flies in the face of accepted wisdom. Where do you get that arrogance. I'm one of the most arrogant persons I know and I wouldn't presume to do what you are all doing of the back of so little (unless you count the ignorance on the plus scale). Where does that arrogance come from. I'm genuinely puzzled.

 

... I'm not a real scientist, I'm not a scientist...

I think that sometimes this sort of subject need some preliminary clarification of what-is-meant-by-what.

Conversations may be unfruitful without this clarification of terms, doesn't matter exactly if one agrees with the term, but some consensus must be achieved in order to one people say one thing and the other understand it correctly. Sometimes the comprehension of the other person's conclusions can't be achieved since each person has slightly different concepts for each term, so is more or less like two persons making the same equations but with different values for the same variables. The tags are the same, but are tagging different things.

"Sex" for example, I personally prefer to use the word for the distinction between genders, and that's how I "defaultly" understand it. But some people use the word "sex" more widely, can be any sort of genetic recombination, even bacterial, even technicality "asexual".

Well, eventually I'll try to describe what I think that's the origin of sex, and all related stuff, eventually adopting some terminology that wouldn't be your favourite, but I think that this discussion can be much more effective with an initial agreement on this stuff, wherever is the terminology, because what matters most is what's happening/what's that than how you tag it.

I'll just disagree a bit with the end, to start.

Whatever is the reality of these behaviors, natural selection very very hardly is any affected.

What is affected is that for some reason, what at first sight seems to be the more adaptive trait, the trait that has the higher reproductive differential (in this case is supposed to be male-female sex preponderance) turns to not be the more adaptive, as thought.

Is this, or we're talking about some sort of entirely new mechanism of evolution that I just don't have any idea of what it would be.

I have to say that would be very counter intuitive, to not say a bit weird, if there's a preponderance of same-sex. I'd expect that, if the idea that different-sex as more adaptive was not the general rule, that at least the general rule would be to sexual behavior to be somewhat random in relation to the gender, and not that the sexual behavior would tend to the same gender.

I don't have a problem accepting that it could be the more adaptive in some cases (cases of species, not even individuals), but seems strange that would prevail among mammals in general, when variants tending to different-sex behaviour would probably reproduce more, and thus exist more. In order to explain that, same-sex behavior ought to have a strong selective advantage over the any-sex behavior our different-sex behavior.

The general advantage of same-sex behavior would be, I think, as a form of a 'K' reproductive strategy (I don't know to what the "K" stands for, but it means more resources per individual, as opposed to "r", which I also don't know where it came from, but means more offspring and less resources for each).

But the "extreme" K strategy would mean to not have any offspring at all, which is totally unadaptive, at least in the individual level. Genes that determine this behaviour could survive by reproducing themselves through siblings, anyway.
Also, strict, lifelong, same-sex (and different-sex too) behavior isn't a necessary assumption, could be that different sex-behavior can be trigged in apparently strict homosexual individuals as an reproductive mechanism.

That's how I think that an prevailing homosexual species or population could work to be viable, but I yet can't see how it would be always adaptive, or why always the same-sex behaviour would tend to be the way to achieve a K reproductive strategy, where other alternative ways could eventually do the same. Not that I think that they would purposefully avoid to evolve in this direction, but it would be weird that some species just don't mate that much, reducing the number of offspring per time, without needing to actively engage in non-reproductive sex.

I don't see how it's even predictable, why more less sexual dimorphism would be more adaptive, or what do you mean by "compatible" and how that's adaptive.

Also it seems to suggest that sexual dimorphisms are driven not by between-sex sexual selection - which would select for less dimorphism, if i got it right, but by some sort of sexual selection between individuals of the same sex, somehow, or maybe by something completely different, which I just don't have any idea of what it could be.

That's one of the points I mentioned earlier where things may be a little bit confused...

I don't see any problem with that, but I also don't think that it dissociates sexual dimorphism of reproduction, if it's part of what you're suggesting.

Neither that reproductive "asexual sex" didn't came earlier than the non-reproductive asexual sex. But I don't strongly doubt that too, although I can guess that there's some reproductive function to that.

What's the specific claim?

I don't see any problem with homosexuality being an anomaly in the sense that's not modal, supposing it's not modal (you seem to disagree).

I also don't think that there's any problem if it's totally not "natural", in the sense that's not biologically determined but something by nurture. It also can have the fulfill the same biological functions, advantages, even if there's just some "developmental room" to the individual be one thing or another.

Anyone who condemns homosexuality by saying that's "not natural" theoretically should do the same with water glasses and go to drink water in rain pools or rivers, with the hands.

What I meant is that the everything suggests that sexual dimorphisms, from anisogamy to genitalia, evolved to reproduction, not to engage in some sort of similar but non-reproductive activity.

How do you suggest that the different genitalias evolved?

Because I have the impression that according to what you say, sexual dimorphism is totally pointless, and should never have evolved at all. All species would remain asexual or hermaphrodites.

So, the reason of the split and the nature of the split is what I can't understand.
Why there isn't just one sex that does both the reproduction and the bonds?




I'll come back to the topic later, got to go back to work