Heterosexuality: A social disorder?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by one_raven, Jul 26, 2003.

  1. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Bear with me here.
    I haven't quite formulated a theory here yet, it is more like a jumble of thoughts, and it is 4:30 AM here.

    I have never fully accpeted the genetic description of sexual orientation.
    In my eyes, there is too much ecidence to suggest social conditioning.
    Not conclusively, or exclusively, but enough to not allow me to accept the genetic explanation.

    On the other hand, I have never accepted the homophobic arguments that homosexuality is some sort of social disease or disorder.

    This has kind of left me standing in the middle looking around me and getting a little dizzy.

    I read something on the philosophy forum that, while I have no clue if it has any factual basis, gat me thinking.
    Someone said something along the lines of:
    "The reason you don't hear about homosexuality in ancient texts, stories and social systems is not because it didn't exist, but because they just didn't have a name for it. It wasn't something that was out of the ordinary at all, it was just the norm, so there was no need to name it. Hell, just look at ancient Greece and Rome!"

    "Hmmmmmmm....", thought I, "That is certainly something to think about."
    And it stuck with me.

    I HAVE been thinking about it, and I think I have come to a conclusion that satisfies me.

    Heterosexuality is a social disorder.
    Brought upon by religion and moralists developing and fostering the social stigma associated with homosexual behavior.
    Homosexuality is a natural instinctive rebellious response to attempted oppression of natural urges along with other social and developmental factors.

    The biggest argument I see people having against this is that homosexuality is not natural.
    The strongest instinct in all animals is reproduction (arguably of course, but that is the current scientific explanation of evolution) and humans are an animal that require both sexes to reproduce.
    Male + Female = Baby.
    Well, I have to admit, they have a valid point in that argument, however, that says nothing about bisexuality.

    Sure, rate and successfulness of reproduction is the most important factor in the survival of a species, but bisexuality would not threaten that at all.

    Think about this:
    Males are sexual, even when females are not menstruating.
    Stimulation of the prostate feels gooood.
    Females are sexual even when they are not menstruating.
    Pheremones seem to be asexual (meaning that female pheremones arouse both males and females and vice versa).
    I had other reasoning, but I can't quite conjure them up right now.

    If males have sex with males AND females it does not inhibit the reproductivity of the species.
    Nor does it if females have sex with both males and females.

    I can think of no physical scientfic argument against bisexuality being natural.

    Maybe there is some truth to the notion that all people are born bisexual, and whether they sway to homosexuality, heterosexuality or stay bisexual is a direct result of social conditioning.

    The most open minded people I have ever met have been bisexual.

    Most heterosexuals have, at one point, either experimented with, fantasized about or wondered about homosexuality.

    Many of the lesbians I have met (probably most) have had some traumatic sexual experience(s) involving men in their past (more often than not, during their early developmental stages).
    (this is MY personal experience. I am not purporting it to ring true for all or even most people)

    I am too tired to take this further right now.

    This could be a well established theory already that I have just not heard.
    Or I could be completely off my gourd and loopy from lack of sleep and too much time at the philosophy forum.

    Any thoughts on this?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Heres my take.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Each individual organism is a trial by nature. It is deemed(by aaaah... me) an error if it fails to breed, a success if it does.
    100% homo is obviously doomed to be a failure(sorry gays, I'm sure you are very successful in your goals and ass-pirations(lol) or whatever, I mean a failure in the evolutionary sense) but its trialled because nature tries any and every combination of cells to make an organism if it is allowed to, and it is allowed to try anything within the human species because a large percentage of them will pass on their genes.
    Bi can work so it will. In fact bi can be beneficial, it does the bonobo community a world of good, it helps them establish dominance and bonds within the clan.
    Humans are different, they are too broad to say this or that is beneficial. So I disagree, all humans are not closet bi-sexuals. Humans vary greatly due to sheer numbers and gross allowances in natural selection. In the physical/gentic sense there is only one type of human, and your prostate point rings true, it looks like ideally, human beings are bi-sexual animals, just like bonobos. Our ancestors probably formed bonds with each other via buttsex also.
    But today there are nearly six-billion different "species" of human in the instinctual/behavioural sense. I personally am not even a pack animal, solitude for me, this could be the reason I'm completely grossed out by the idea of man sex. I guess I don't feel the need to establish dominance in a clan, nor do I feel the need to form bonds with my clan members.
    I do feel the need to pass on my seed, unfortunately for evolution I might just make it even though I'm some deformed version of the homo-sapien, one that doesn't even like banging men, what kind of homo-sapien doesn't like banging men?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm 100% serious when I answer that question with; one that should never have been.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Myriad360 Registered Senior Member

    Maybe I missed something, but I don't think the original post suggested that ALL humans are closet bis. And there is something to be said about a species that OVER produces, because that can cause a big strain on the food chain and pass around plagues. I think human can be considered a species that has populated at least a little over what will balance the system. As a recoil or perhaps and eddy current to the direction the species is taking, maybe bisexuallity is a good idea, especially in heavily populated areas. I also agree with the statement that most gay young women have had a bad experience with a male in their early years, and some seek revenge for that. I hope people will kind of wise up someday and not make themselves a reaction to the agreed theory of social pressure. They should just do what makes them happy, and no one else that is not effected negatively should care.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    female pheromones ARE NOT A-SEXUAL, YES they do also arouse other heterosexual females and makes them produce pheromones themselves and ready to reproduce with males BUT

    This is a matter of responding to competition, otherwise the only hot girl with the pheromones would get all the attention/resources of the guys.

    Also any way you look at it in the nature vs. nurture debate, your basic sexuality is genetically determined. If we look at the polls here at sciforum (are U a HoMo ?) A small percentage says is a "true" gay or lesbian, the largest group claims to be true heterosexuals, but the MOST INTERESTING is the large group that says MOSTLY HETEROSEXUAL (not 50/50 bi, but more like 80/20 bi). I consider myself as part of this group. And I don't like to watch guys kissing , cause usually I can not identify with any of them while most I see a guy kiss a girl, I could say: Hey, I would kiss that girl too, or two girls kissing I'd say: Hey, I would kiss that girl also...

    This group has heterosexual preference, but might be tempted to make a rare exception on some occaision or at least think about it. I think this group is vulnerable to social nurture, you could never change the heart and the mind of a true homo/heterosexual, but people with bi-sexual tendencies (small or large) could be nurtured to prefer one side more...

    The fear of many homosexuals in recognizing that homosexuality is largely genetically determined, is that people oppressive to homosexuals might consider it ammunition to lable it as a disiease and that with genetic engineering we will be able to cure it soon.....This fear is not entirely unfounded, someday some influential brave new world idiot may decide anybody without blue eyes are sick. My thought about it is that it is just a genetic feature, not a genetic bug...
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2003
  8. exsto_human Transitional Registered Senior Member


    According to your theory homosexuality is ALSO a social disorder, where bisexuality is the natural instinct.

    Personaly I can tell you my instincts have never swayed me in this direction. I am not homophobic, I have lots of gay friends(ok only 2

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). And I don't think I am repressing anything, infact I have experimented by trying to fantisize about other men... And quite honestly, it did nothing for me but make me want to do a mental ctrl-alt-delete after 2mins

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. 420Joey SF's Incontestable Pimp Valued Senior Member

    Sexuality is a social preference not a disorder.
  10. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    I think only those that reponded "I boink my mother" in the polls could be labled as social disorderly

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But i bet halve of them are lying cause they only WISH they would have the guts to kill their father and boink their mother, instead have to resort to jerking off

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Xenu BBS Whore Registered Senior Member


    It's both.
  12. Watcher Just another old creaker Registered Senior Member

    always took this for granted...

    I covered this ground years ago and came up with the only reasonable explanation - essentially the same one that you did.

    The normal situation is that all human beings are "bisexual" in that under the right circumstances they may have a desire to participate in a sex act with either gender. Of course the concepts of 'bisexual", "heterosexual", and "homosexual" are social constructs that are convenient (and sometimes useful) boxes within which we conduct our sexual business.

    Of course the reality is that our society blows the importance of sexual behavior waaaaay out of proportion - which is why we get so hung up on this topic and spend so much mental energy on the absurd topic of what we do with our genitals.

    On the other hand, if we WEREN'T so focussed on "what we do with our genitals", I'm not sure the Internet would exist today.
  13. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Dr Lou,
    It sounds to me like you agree with me, but you really don't want to.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Exploring too deeply for comfort?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Care to elaborate on that a bit?
    1.) Why would only the "hot" girl get the attention? I don't understand the logic that drew you to that conclusion.
    2.) If they also arouse females, then they ARE assexual, the purpose of the assexuality is the question.
    2b.) How can you be so sure that it is for competition, and not attraction?

    The point of this thread is to say that I think that sexual preference is not necessarily due completely to genetic determination, so obviously I do not agree with that statement. I have outlined a "way to look at it" that does not agree with that stement.

    Of course. That was the intent.

    And how can you be so sure that it is your "instincts" that have made you straight rather than social conditioniong?
  14. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Actually, homosexuality has existed with a name for a long time in history. There were just different names for it.

    First, homosexuality strictly speaking is not sex between men but between a person of the third gender (transgendered) and a man. In Greece e.g., sex between men was the norm. People would laugh at you if you suggested that sexual desire for other men is something that a minority of men have.

    But they considered it abnormal and had a special name for a male who was extremely feminine, promiscuous and sought receptive anal sex from men as an assertion of his feminine gender, thinking of his anus as a vagina. This person was called a "Catamite".

    Sex between men has not existed as a different identity, because it was considered the most natural thing. Like you would not have a name for a person with two eyes.

    Heterosexuality (i.e. a need to bond with women) was extremely looked down upon in these societies, and a person who liked to spend time with women rather than men was put down as a catamite, not fit enough to be in the male group.

    The 'homosexual' started as the same category (catamite) in the modern era, but as the western society broke male society (people lived into male groups and female groups back then like in the nature) and made the society mixed-gender, heterosexual society, they also intensified the heat on male-male bonds which earlier thrived under a male solidarity in an all male society.

    the concept of sexual orientation was born and masculine straight men too were now classified as homosexual (in other words catamite) if they had sex with men. This was of course done to put pressure on straight men to take on a heterosexual identity --- which worked.

    Of course today, meterosexual men (partly feminine partly masculine) more than transgendered males dominate the gay/ catamite identity. But straight men will always find it difficult to relate with a basically transgendered/ meterosexual identity. Therefore there are very few straight men in the homosexual society.

    The entire concept of homosexuality is unnatural. just like heterosexuality.

    I can tell you with an example.

    The skin on your wrist may not mean much to you, you would probably never even have thought of it as being separate from other part of your body. But there is another person in whom that part of the skin is pinched for a long time. It would be so painful to that person that he will be unusually aware of that part of his skin. And if he has to live with that pain, let's say he finds a name for that part of the skin. Say 'abc skin'.

    Now, if he starts thinking that 'abc skin' as a separate part of body is a valid phenomenon for everyone, he'd really be a fool. You for one will not think much of 'abc skin' and would not want to refer to it as a speparate part of your body. It is just a normal part of your entire skin area. nothing unusual. You may rightly tell him that there is no such thing as an 'abc skin' at least for a normal man. The concept has validity only in abnormal conditions.

    He may argue that you too have that portion of skin, and so does everyone else. But that still does not mean that you start referring to that part of your skin as 'abc skin'.

    It's the same with homosexuality. Had it not been suppressed like in the west, it would not be important. There is a separate category only because sex between men is suppressed. And it is suppressed because it is a mixed gender society.

    Any society which is still male-only and female-only will not relate to words like homosexuality or heterosexuality or sexual orientation (e.g. in India).
  15. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Don't worry, Lou, I'm sure that all you need is to take some anti-depressants/anxiety medication, start bathing regularly and get out more, and you'll manage to turn yourself into an acceptable member of the species. Possible breeding partners may even talk to you eventually.
  16. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Hey it only seems kinky the first time, give it a try and maybe you'll have something to relate to.
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    You don't need to be heterosexual to reproduce, as you rightly pointed out. In fact in nature, there is not a single instance of 'heterosexuality' outside the birds species. Definitely not amongst mammals. HETEROSEXUALITY IS UNNATURAL. and I challenge anyone to disprove that.

    In fact, sexual desire for females is not a requirement for male-female mating at all. Animals do seem to have a sexual desire distinct from a desire to procreate.

    There are species where there are no males. Reproduction takes place without sex. But sexual desire is still there. Before sexual dimorphism took place, all animal species was like this. But the above example where sexual dimorphism has not taken place, proves that sexual desire was present even then.

    It is clear that nature chose to ride piggyback on sexual desire which was already present between same-sex to accomplish reproduction and it was not the primary function of sex.

    Look at the animal world today. Several species of male fish follow females like heck during the breedeing season. The National geography channedl will have you believe that they are love lorn. Males compete with each other to mate with the female (or so it seems!). Along comes a female and she makes her choice of male. The male frantically follows her as if there is a magnet. She drops her eggs and the male quickly impregnates the eggs --- AND NOT THE FEMALE. The male loses all interest in the female after this. And she goes her way, never to see the male again, taking the eggs with her.
    The male did not need to touch the female with a barge pole. It is clear that there was no sexual desire, only a desire to procreate.

    Look at the mammalian world. If they really had a desire to bond sexually with females they would have chosen to live in mixed gender societies like the western world does. But no. Males meet females briefly during the mating season, never to meet or know her again. Definitely, there is a strong breeding instinct, but not a strong sexual desire.

    Besides few males in the wild mate regularly each year. Most males mate only few times in a lifetime. Many males do not mate at all, including several alpha males (that holds true for humans too!)

    Note that, as opposite this, male mammals share life-long bonds with other males, and this involves sex too --- though it probably does not involve 'anal intercourse' which the homosexual world is obsessed with.

    Humans are no different. Except in western societies, males are not required to bond with women. Dating is looked down upon in most non-western societies. Marriage is a must for procreation purposes, but men instinctively resist marriage.

    In ancient times, men loved only other men, marrying only for procreation purposes, under social pressure and there is documented proof of this. That the social pressures still continue, reinforces that male-female bonds are not natural. The whole antagonism against so-called 'homosexuality' is part of this social pressure. And so is the enormous powers given to those who take on a 'heterosexual' identity.

    Reproduction is about quantity. Male-male bonds (not homosexuality) is about quality. Heterosexuality is about removing quality from life and concentrating on quantity. By giving heterosexuality extreme powers and the sole right to exist, the society has doomed the human race to a miserable life, made humans a burden on this earth, and probably doomed them to an impending extinction.

    The nature has given only as much procreation need to creatures as it can healthily sustain. Over-population is as bad as under population for a species. Male-female mating has a time and place in an animal's (including humans) life. There is no place for male-female bonding in the nature's scheme of things, which is totally an artificial and unnatural social creation.

    Sexual desire is bascially between the same sex. Nature uses it for procreation, but only sparsely. Human societies, in order to grow faster than nature allowed them to, have acted against nature by forcing all men to mate with women. Western society has taken this process to extremes by creating 'heterosexuality'.

    And we can see its consequences. Humans beings are spilling like insects. They have killed off most of the animal species, and the rest are biding their time. It has hollowed our mother earth. Human beings are acting foolishly and terming this destruction 'development'. They want to lead in luxury, not caring for how it affects nature. They want to reach to the moon, when all they needed to do was to respect and live with nature in harmoney. THIS MINDSET WOULD NEVER HAVE COME ABOUT HAD HUMAN BEINGS NOT FALLEN TO HETEROSEXUALITY. It has taken them away from nature within and outside of them. They have lost all respect for it.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2005
  18. Myriad360 Registered Senior Member

    Sorry dude, but I am not sure you know what you are talking about.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to same sex stuff. For humans, it is not an issue because we are no longer in the nature's game of having to reproduce to survive as a species.

    Heterosexuality not natural in nature? I guess I don't understand. The fish still wish to fertalize the female eggs. FEMALE eggs. Name one species that does not do that and survives. That is simple; if you don't, your species dies. At the very best, you will have a complete bisexual species, but not purely homosexual. Have homosexual, half heterosexual, but still BOTH.
  19. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    I sure don't feel that heterosexuality is all that natural. I look at the behavior of people to whom heterosexuality is supposedly natural, and see people who are constantly at war with their sexual partners. Could it be that they feel a conflict?
  20. Myriad360 Registered Senior Member

    There is a good point, but let me give you two counter points:

    1. War is natural in human nature (apparently, if what you consider natural to be what has happened since history was written).
    2. Conflict, as well, is natural.

    However, I don't believe that addresses the whole post. The problem with different sex couples these days probably has little to do with sexuality. It probably has more to do with the the assumption that the majority of different sex couples are more conservative, dare I say, in nature, and thus a little more stuck to their beliefs. (Not alot of gay republicans, is what I am assuming.) This may apply to them in a political sense, but politics aside, I believe they follow simular thought patterns in their social lives, sex related or not. And when you have two people living very close with each other in lifestyles that involve each other on a frequent basis, these attitudes of sticking to your guns and not compromising can quickly lead to domistic issues within the household. So perhaps this human nature, which we all chose to embrace or reject, is more to blame.

    I can already imagine your follow up... perhaps the differences in men and women is what causes this conflict? That is basically what you have been saying.

    Well, I believe that whether or not you are a guy, a girl, blonde, etc, it is not whether or not you find someone exactly like you, and that that would cause a low-conflict relationship. I think of being with someone just like me as terriblely boring. I think it is how much we can all compromise to allow some differences amoung us, and how much we benefit intellectually from that. To hear something we haven't heard before, think something different, and to experience something different frequently is what our human nature is. Whether those experiences are endorsed by the majority or not.

    I will admit, I believe, in human nature, that homosexuality is natural. I would not take an extreme and deny it.

    But I would not take the other extreme and deny heterosexuality either.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Myriad360 Registered Senior Member

    I am sorry guys, this post was retarded. 2 year review, please erase it or something.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    My follow-up is this: Heterosexuality seems to be marked by a lot of strife. It also seems to be marked by the use of a tremendous amount of force against people who do not believe in it. This indicates what heterosexuals think of heterosexuality. It is as if, to them, heterosexuality is not the natural leaning for humans, and the natural leaning must be fought at all costs. I've heard as much from preachers. The strife between man and woman is as if they have been forced to be together against their will.
  23. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    what the hell r you talking about. man and woman want to be together because two magnets go together. they want to be whole. magnets repulse if they want to remain themselves, so do humans. it doesn't matter what anyone in the entire world thinks, man and woman go together because they miss themselves.

Share This Page