Heterosexuality is unnatural

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Buddha1, Jun 11, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    There is NO EVIDENCE FOR HETEROSEXUALTIY IN NATURE

    Here is a challenge for anyone who takes pride in a heterosexual identity:

    There is NO evidence of heterosexuality in the animal world (except for birds and maybe a couple more -- and in very rare cases in mammals).

    Heterosexuality is unnatural.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    My second contention is that an extreme minority of mammals that do show heterosexual behaviour are not typical males but rather third-gender males. Males, who may not be abnormal, but naturally have factors that feminise them (hormones or brain factors)
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    Bombos is a cheeky type of chap, one day he met a gay guy and Bombos asked him, 'Can gays procreate?' The gay guy says, 'No, why d'you ask?' And Bombos says, 'Then why do your numbers keep increasing?'
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    what are you talking about
    are you celibate?
     
  8. VossistArts 3MTA3 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    441
    I think heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same thing in that one person is attracted to one sex only whether its same sex or opposite. I think ultimately either of the two are somewhat dysfunctional, and arrise from imprinting, conditioning, or some sort of definable pathology. Im strictly heterosexual, thats how I feel but im pretty sure why i am. i was brought into the world and exposed to loving heterosexual parents only. at the youngest of ages,when running around with other boys, and the subject, or any event or action suggestive of homosexual behaviour came up, it was always reacted to with repulsion, even anger and sometimes physical hostility. it was decided in the groups of boys i ran around with that homosexuality or bi-sexuality and the possiblility of being tagged with either orientation, was like a fate worse than death.
    Im pretty sure orientation is learned or like i said the result of some sort of definable pathology. I think too that bi-sexual people are probably technically the more healthy of the lot. shrugs
     
  9. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Is this a joke, or what?
     
  10. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    Trolling more likely. If there is a moderator who is doing their job then this thread will be locked before the vitriol starts.<P>
     
  11. VossistArts 3MTA3 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    441

    Naw, actually Ive read this subject in several places in several published articles on the net over the past few years. I think you might be right in a way. At best, and allowing it to be with the least assumption I think the concept might point to what I was describing above, or it points to the notion that in nature animals dont attract heterosexually except for maybe a few examples other than to procreate. i think that procreation is beyond their control. its chemically enforced. otherwise where do you see a male and female of the same species hanging together except in a herd or group environment. usually like sex groups together within the whole group if any, that im aware of anyhow.
    the bottom line is, and i always repeat myself here, is that making arguments for the behaviours and practices of humans by comparing humans to the rest of the animals world is...hardly valid imo. I guess occasionally a really really knowledgeable person makes a valid comparison, but in my experience they usually have to go to great lengths to do so., To argue for homosexuality by comparing Humans to animals, really degrades the whole argument in general. I think the maybe the best way to argue for it, just like for anything else in our society where peoples lifestyles of choice are being threatened by the control of people people uninvolved is " its my business. you dont like it, dont practice it". end of argument.
     
  12. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Homosexuals are bought up in the exact same environment. Most of us are right in lock step with this sort of behavior before we start to realize that we're not quite like the other boys. Needless to say there's usually quite a lot of angst and confusion at this point. People like to play up the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals as if we grew up in different societies and were just raised different or something, it's not so.

    If your description of why you think you’re heterosexual were actually a force strong enough to decide your sexual orientation then there wouldn’t be scores of homosexual children disowned by their right-wing nut job parents.
     
  13. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Do take note of the fact that this was quite likely the point of this thread to begin with. It's a reversal of a popular argument against homosexuals.
     
  14. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Simply, if there was no evidence of Heterosexual activity throughout nature then none of us would be here now even considering whether the poster was a troll or not.
     
  15. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Heterosexual activity is not the same as heterosexuality or heterosexual identity.

    Male fish frantically pursues the female (according to discovery channel it is lovelorn (heterosexual propaganda)). The female drops several eggs, the male fertilises the eggs. But he never even once touches her. As soon as this process is over they both lose interest in each other, and go their own way, never to meet again.

    IS THIS HETEROSEXUALITY. This is not even heterosexual activity.

    Where in the mammal world do you see anything equivalent of dating?

    Where in the mammal world do you see nuclear families where mother and father raise their kids together?

    Where in the mammal world do you see mixed gender societies?
     
  16. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    From my experience on other discussion boards, I know by now, that the 'heterosexual' minority will try to divert from the main point. Because they know their lifestyle is not validated by nature.

    Well, you guys would surely hope, it was all a joke. It so exposes you.

    And I'm sure, you will try your best to subvert this thread!

    But if you're man enough, come to the real point. DISPROVE ME!
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Exactly. And if heterosexuality is not natural, it must harm men.

    I'm trying to go further, to find out the exact process of this pressure. The exact ways in which it harms men (not homosexuals, but straight men). And most of all, the reason for the society to apply such a pressure on men.

    Furthermore, the extent of pressure applied on straight men to bond sexually with women, will point directly to the extent of disinterest they have in bonding sexually with women.

    While the extent of pressure applied on straight men to suppress their sexual need for other men, will point directly to the extent and power of such a need among straight men.
     
  18. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Widespread prevalence of sexual bonds between males (I insist not homosexuality) has been proved beyond doubt amongst wild animals.

    Now, the ball is in the court of self-defined heterosexuals. It is their moral duty to prove that heterosexuality indeed does exist in nature.....when all the evidence emphatically points otherwise.

    And if they cannot validate it through nature, then the practise of 'dating' (that is neither found in the nature nor in non-western societies) should be banned. Male-female relationships should be limited only to procreation. Casual male-female relationships or love affairs should be made entirely illegal. And all intrusions in the male-only societies by planting females into them, in order to establish a heterosexual order, should be removed. So that we can live in the way that nature has meant us to.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    You have put forth a bigger issue. I totally disagree with you here.

    First, I disagree that comparing humans to animals is degrading. Humans are animals. I would say, it would be degrading to compare animals to humans. And homosexual and heterosexual people alike do that by let's say talking about 'gay' animals or naming their procreative behaviour as 'love'.

    The brain of human beings, it seems, has become their (and everybody else's) worst enemy. Especially since the Christianity, Science and now Heterosexuality thing came along. Within a short period of time, because of the three, man has come far from his own nature and has lost all respect fot the nature outside (Today, you are so ashamed of being compared to animals, our ancestors worshipped these animals and learned from them). Man has populated this earth like pests. He's brought most animals to extinction, devastated mother earth adn has the cheeks to call this 'development'.

    Do we really need to go to the moon? Do we really need to live in such luxury at the cost of mother earth? I wish we could go back to being animals where we can live and die according to our natural instincts and enrich mother earth with our existence.

    TWO: In a heterosexual world, bent on using science to further its heterosexual agenda......a science which does not acknowledge or validate the feelings of human beings, and where humans hide and suppress their true nature behind socially thrust identities, and the society uses this invisibility so generated to prove that these needs don't exist at all, the only way to understand our nature becomes by referring to other animals (to me it's an honour1) or to humans still living in the wild (if they are left alone by the missionaries!)

    I'm not arguing for homosexuality. I'm arguing against heterosexuality. It's not the same thing.

    Believe me it's not as simple as that. I've spent 10 years researching the issue. The whole thing is too complicated, is part of a much larger agenda, and in fact has roots at least two and a half thousands of years ago.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  20. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Now, there's an issue I've been raising for a long time, but no one has really paid any attention to. Vossist is absolutely right.

    Almost all men (especially straight men) have a sexual need for other men, whether or not they have a sexual need for women. Sexual orientation is not a real divide between people. The only thing that brought together people belonging to different genders of men together under the 'homosexual' category in the west was a common enemy (heterosexuality) and not a common biological trait. "Homosexual" is a political identity, not a biological one (the entire gay gene thing is bull shit!).

    Men are naturally divided on the basis of gender and this has a biological basis (rather than sexual orientation which is unnatural). And there are basically three distinct male genders inspite of whom they prefer sexually:
    - Straight: Predominantly masculine men
    - Meterosexuals: Both masculine as well as feminine in almost equal measures
    - Transgendered: Predominantly Feminine males

    Please note that I'm not using the western definitions of these terms.

    Now to the point you've made.

    There's a strong pressure on men as a whole to exaggerate their sexual feelings for women and to suppress their sexual feelings for men (as pointed out by you and Vossist) if their manhood is to be acknowledged by the society and they are to be included in the 'men's' category (straight men in the western society). Plus it has created a separate 'homosexual' category, which is actually an extension of the earlier transgender/ lesser male/ third sex category. The society intensifies the heat on male-male bonds by labeling all such bonds as 'gay' and pushing them in the 'homosexual' category. In the past and in traditional societies even today, this category is meant only for the third sex. This is a nightmare for straight men, for whom this social category has nothing to offer. Their fate lies with other straight men.

    Now transgendered males don't really care for the manhood status, their life is anyway made hell in the straight circle (see definition above) and those transgendered males that like men are only too glad to come to embrace the 'homosexual' identity.

    As the straight space becomes more and more hostile to male femininity, Meterosexuals feel more and more different than straight men. Those who predominantly like men too find solace in the homosexual identity because this proving manhood business doesn't appeal all that much to them anyways. In fact Meterosexuals today dominate the 'homosexual' space and culture.

    For both Meterosexuals and transgendered men their sexual attraction for other men is an integral part of their femininity. In fact their femininity is the root of the word 'queer'. But it is not so for straight men, for whom their attraction for men is only and only a part of their masculine self -- though not acknowledged by the society as such.

    For most straight men this homosexual, lesser-male space is worse than death -- like Vossist said. Since ancient times, they were thrown into a similar lesser-male category when they failed to pass the manhood test (though it was NEVER having sex with women then!). As the heat on male-male bonds increases in a mixed gender setting, many straight men are forced to leave and join the gay label. But it's never easy for them and they feel like a fish out of water. They need to be with other straight men and develop their masculinity. And hence most of even those straight men that have exclusive attraction for men sacrifice their sexual need in order to retain their straight status.

    And if the straight man has even an iota of sexual attraction for women, he'll gladly and prominently use that as a handle to hang on to the straight identity --- because his manhood and his need to bond with other straight men (as one amongst them) is very strong in a straight man. That's excluding the fake straight men that are considered straight only for their heterosexuality.

    In fact the entire oppressive system is meant to manipulate straight male behaviour, and force it to take on a heterosexual identity. Straight men start hating their sexual need for men and some even become hostile to it. They flaunt this hatred and a disdain for the feminine homosexual category by putting down homosexuals (i.e. queers who like men!). Whether they like it or not, straight men direct all their sexual energies towards women who are the only source of their social masculinity in a heterosexual society.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  21. Tom2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    726
    Really, so what? It doesn't work that way with countless other species, and you know it.

    In humans. Or are you forgetting that humans are mammals? And while we're at it, are you also forgetting that fish are not mammals?

    And of course there is evidence for heterosexuality in nature. I'm a heterosexual. Glad t'meet ya! And I don't feel any pressure to be heterosexual, apart from excitement at the idea of sexual contact with women and revulsion at the idea of sexual contact with men.
     
  22. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    It's not only fish. Species after species of animals show a strong periodic desire to procreate, but give little evidence of sexual desire. In fact there are clear indications of a lack of sexual desire in most species. And in the males of a species that do show some evidence of sexual desire, such a desire is not strong enough. There is no need for emotional bonding, no desire for togetherness, no 'love' involved. And certainly no evidence of'distaste' for male-eroticism. In short, nothing that characterises a 'heterosexual' human male.

    In a huge number of species, males take a lot of precautions to prevent the female from using anybody else's sperms for procreation. E.g., they may close the vaginal passage using their secretions in order to prevent the female from copulating again. Since there is no desire to meet or mate again, and no emotional bond, sexual jealousy is ruled out. (another pointer that sexual interest is absent). More importantly, it shows that even in species that require copulation for mating, there is a strong conscious drive to procreate, which the heterosexual society does not acknowledge as different from a sexual drive. Some males in these animals may display a sexual interest, but which is feeble and only a rare minority of males -- i.e. of transgendered males, shows a strong sexual attachment with the female sex.

    There are several other important evidences in nature that point to the fact that the basic urge that makes males seek females for mating, once in a blue moon, is a drive to procreate rather than a sexual desire. At the same time, there is ample proof that a sexual urge is present in males as well as females throughout the year. And proof that this permanent urge is for the same-sex.

    In fact all animal species have evolved from the stage where there were no distinct male and female, and the reproduction was asexual. Sexual drive was present even then – apparently because it serves an important biological purpose. E.g. strong sexual drive is found amongst species that have not yet achieved sexual dimorphism. There are either only females or a hermaphrodite being, but sex still takes place throughout the year --- unlike in male-female sex which is only when procreation is required.

    Thus sexual drive precedes sexual dimorphism. These are clear evidences that nature chose sex as a means to reproduce by either diverting a small part of sexual urge (already present for same-sex) into male-female mating, or by creating an urge to reproduce.

    Females, of all species, too do not care about sex with males until and unless it's a baby they want. Until that they don't let a male come near them. And the way the male has to chase and force females to mate is a strong evidence that it's an act she does not really enjoy. The same cannot be said about their sexual bonds with other females (e.g. amongst macaques monkeys).

    Again, few animal males indulge in procreation process on a regular basis every year. Most males mate only a couple of times in their life and many males don't mate at all --- including some alpha males. Apparently, for nature procreation is not everything, but a part of the things that are needed for a species survival.
     
  23. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    I only know of bisexual animals. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are cultural and only exist in the human world..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page