Heterosexuality is unnatural

Sorry, but I find girls more aesthetically pleasing (being an artistic type of a person), besides all my best friends happen to be girls and I very enjoy their company.
And I have no sexual need for males or females, I'm fully psychologically content with my own company and can well control my instincts.


The fate of the humankind is as clear as fresh snow on a winter morning - it will disapear sooner or later, and there's nothing wrong with that - even stars go nova and black holes evaporate - that's the nature of the universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Buddha

Can you please explain what your actual ideology is, concerning the classification of sexual gender?

You talk about western 'culture'... please point out human cultures that are Not heterosexual in the main.

In conclusion... if heterosexuality is bad/oppressive and so is homo/bi/a/sexuality according to you, pray tell us, what is the ideal sexual state to be in ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

an orgy!
with lots of girls, men and other animals!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oi Avatar who you lookin at?

 

sorry, having a simultaneos chat with two girls,
we're having an s&m e-orgy, little animals and corpses included

 

But that involves hetero/homo/bi/bestial sex.. I don't think that's what he/she/it's got in mind.

 

I'm trying hard to imagine what Buddha's ideal world would entail. i think he would prefer to live and hang out with men. Mutual massage and debate would be the order of the day as they went about their daily business of huntin', fishin' and kite flyin'. Sex would be a spontaneous option that could be performed with any willing gender as long as it 'felt right', except in the case of wanting children, in which case the man and woman ivolved would have a 'special; understanding or contract with no particular ties, oh I don't know, I'm just clutching at straws here.

 

Reminds of ancient Greece or Rome. He probably likes Plato too.

 

Good to see you on the discussion table. In a civilised way and in the true scientific spirit.

This is the first time someone has asked me to explain the pressures --- so thank you for the opportunity. But it is a topic that can’t be dealt with lightly or with one liners or with instances in abstracts. Because the pressures of men, like their oppression are silent, and men are not supposed to acknowledge them. Men are supposed to suffer in silence and keep a brave, strong front. We have to look beyond all the social masks of men --- the masks of power --- to see how victimised they really are.

I am not surprised that you see no evidence of “pressures” on men. I have seen several instances of this denial. In fact it is interesting that during their early youth the majority identifies strongly – although cautiously with the issues I’m taking up…..a majority of men after they cross a certain age and are past through the turmoils and have finally managed to ‘prove’ their manhood, don’t want to acknowldege the pressures at all. Like they never had to go through them. Like they were naturally born the way they are now.

The fact is that after a certain age and what men consider their most crucial achievment in life --- they have no stake in a change of things now. In fact a change will only negate what they have fought for and achieved in all their life. It will expose them – their lifetime achievments as vain and hollow.

Then again, If you imprison and enslave human beings from a young age, they will find nothing wrong with it, and in fact start relating with their tormentors, especially if they are trained to be dependant upon them.

The pressures of men are not related just with sexuality. But the sexual pressures are the most intense --- and are the most crucial to achieve social manhood. Social manhood is a matter of life and death for men --- but I’ll leave that discussion for later.

These pressures include those to suppress ones emotions and emotional needs. Have you heard someone say “real men don’t cry!”. When you successfully --- albeit artificially --relate something with being a ‘man’, men will fall in line to conform --- whether or not it comes naturally to them. Have you seen how ad agencies try to push their products --- trying to imprint that ‘this is what real men should have’.

This is something non-straight men will never understand --- whether they are the true heterosexuals I’m talking about or the homosexuals or women. For them ‘male’ and ‘man’ are the same. Masculinity and manhood are vain issues --- not real. That is why this lot fails to understand the suffering of straight men or understand the enormity of the problem and how this seemingly small issue influences each and every aspect of a man’s life. You will notice that the whole thing about ‘proving one’s manhood’ leaves them cold.

Social manhood has been manipulated by the society for the same reason, to control and manipulate the behaviour --- especially the sexual behaviour of men for a long time. Because nothing else can work on them --- they being the most powerful human gender.

It is as easy as successfully classifying something as masculine --- if you want to force men to do it, or classifying it as feminine --- if you want to force men away from it. It is for this reason that the study of masculinity (and femininity) could be an important key to liberate men.

The biggest pressures of men to adopt and uphold a ‘heterosexual’ identity is of course that it is made the sole criteria for granting social manhood. A sexual desire in men can bar you from the mainstream male community --- called in the heterosexual world as ‘straight’. This is the biggest blow for a naturally straight man. For he cares for nothing as strongly as being part of the male group. That’s his natural identity. That’s where he belongs. He needs to bond with other masculine men. Without this he is nothing. Without this he cannot develop his natural masculinity. He will do it even if it means killing the sexual need for men --- which in the first place.

Being debarred from the straight world has several implications. It means that you will not have any chance to develop your natural masculinity. And if you are naturally straight you will not have much femininity to rely on --- unlike homosexual men. So you end up being a lesser man --- fuelling the gay stereotypes of being 'nice guys'.

If is funny that you say that there are no pressures on men in the west to be heterosexual. Nowhere else on this world will you find such extreme pressures. In fact in my society, if I compare it with yours --- there is hardly any pressure. All you need to do to prove that you are a man (in my society!) is to get married and produce a son. That is all. You are free to be the man that you are for the rest of your life. Men bond and grow with other men for the most part. A sexual attraction between men is considered quite an integral part of being a man --- at least in the men’s group --- although you don’t talk about it in formal settings or with women. Furthermore, you don’t need to emotionally bond with women. There are no social expectations to date women or love them --- actually that can get you into trouble. You just need to fuck your wife every now and then and do your own thing!

There are so many examples of the pressure to be heterosexual in the west. There are the more open pressures like social discrimination against non-heterosexually identified people….. this comes from religious, educational and political institutions. Then you have the army that denies entry to non-heterosexuals and treats them like shit. There is so much of open hostility against non-heterosexuals. I have been told that in some places in America people can throw stones at you if you are a so-called homosexual.

All you have to do is visit some of the discussion sites discussing the issue of so-called homosexuality. It’s interesting how people feel strongly about the issue, often getting hostile or abusive, when they claim that only 2 – 10% of the population is what they call ‘gay’ (sic). The kind of hostility displayed by westerners to the issue of so-called ‘homosexuality’ is mind boggling and can’t be explained scientifically. I mean how can they possibly feel threatened by such a small population.

I mean no where in the world will you find it unacceptable for two men to walk hand in hand in public. This happens only in a society which claims to be free. Really funny that you should say that there are no pressures on men.

It was on our own site (sciforums) where a heterosexual man claimed with pride that in their peer groups while growing up, being labelled a fag was a fate worse than death. And you say there is no pressure! The only people who don’t feel any pressures are true heterosexuals and true homosexuals. They rule the heterosexual world.

I remember an incident where my female colleague was presenting a set of posters on masculinity in a conference in Durban. An American coolly walks to her and says with utter disdain (and over confidence) that all this talk about male pressures is bull shit. American men don’t have any such pressures. My colleague just asked him one question. “Can you say no to a woman who makes sexual advances towards you, in America?” The man thought for a moment and said “no”! There was no more discussion necessary on the topic.

It is not only heterosexually identified men (especially those past their youth) who claim men in America have no social pressures. Interestingly many homosexual men also make that claim. They say life in America for ‘gay’ men is cool and free and deny there are any pressures. But then you have to understand that these men are ‘homosexuals/ queers/ feminine. They never had a stake in masculinity. The social pressures of masculinity does not affect them --- especially when they have the best choice in the world to discard the straight identity and adopt the ‘gay’ identity. But the transition for straight men into the ‘gay’ identity is always traumatic.

It is impossible for straight men to survive in the straight world without a heterosexual identity. I mean you can’t even walk straight or look people in the eye, if you think they know you’re interested in men.

In gay circles straight men have to live like fish out of water. Their masculinity is a useless commodity. It is considered inconsistent with a sexual need for men. If you are straight you are faking it. You are known as ‘straight-acting’.

Thus they have to make a choice between their gender needs or sexual needs. Most men opt for the former and sacrifice their sexual needs for men. They try their best to channelise this into a sexual need for women. They will rather die than accept their sexual interest in men. Is this not pressure?

I mean if there was no pressure, Tom cruise would not have to sue the man who ‘accused’ him of being gay. It was a big dishonour for Tom, which no straigh man can afford. In the face of such extreme hostility, the only option for men to save themselves is to strengthen their heterosexual identity and image. This involves a fair amout of ‘fag’ bashing --- whether it is in an intellectual forum like this or in peer groups. But this is not enough. One has to be seen as being in a relationship or actively looking for women. Otherwise your sexuality will always be suspect. Isn’t that pressure?

In my society all you need to do during the youth is to talk incessantly about women. And your social masculinity is safe. At the most fuck one or two -- if you want additional social powers?

The media plays its own role in enforcing heterosexuality. I mean it does not even give 10% of positive space to the 10% homosexulaity (sic) that the west claims. Indeed western men are supposed to be shattered by two men kissing on the screen. What are you guys --- made of sugar? You look at American movies and you’ll think that men indeed are heterosexual. And that only feminine men like other men. This when so many overly macho men have come out as ‘gay’ (though its sad!).

Another form of pressure comes in the form of rewards and encouragement --- of staggering enormity that comes with the heterosexual identity.

I could go on and on about social pressures on men to be heterosexual. But this is probably enough for starters.

 

Where did you get this information --- from watching American movies?

I think the best answer to the above will be the following quote from the heterosexual Buddhist scholar and author, the late Alan Watts:

"If they (young and unrealised men who desire men, who affect machismo, ultramasculinity, and who constitute the hard core of our military-industrial-police-mafia-combine) would go fuck each other (and I use that word in its most positive and appreciative sense) the world would be vastly improved. They make it with women only to brag about it, but are actually far happier in the barracks than in boudiors. This is, perhaps, the real meaning of "make love, not war". We may be destroying ourselves through the repression of male-male bonds."

 

I have done that a number of times. But I'll repeat.

Most of my My ideology regarding the ‘sexual’ classification of gender is very clear. That there exists no such classification in nature. It’s a ploy by the forces of heterosexualisation represented by ‘lesser men’ and ‘homosexuals’ (two distinct groups!). lesser men are those who depend on the manipulation of social manhood to keep real straight men down and get social power/ masculinity. In a level field/ natural society these males have no chance of asserting their dominance or manhood.

The only real classification of people can be on the basis of their gender --- that is ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’. That is the real spirit of the term ‘straight’, although it is wrongly used for heterosexual men.

Name any culture that is not the modern west. Including pre-modern west. There were no words for ‘heterosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuals’ or homosexuals before the 19th century. Both the terms were initially used to denote ‘sexual perversions’ and were supposed to be clinical terms. No other culture even today has any word for such things. There are words for sexual acts, but no concept of defining an individual on the basis of the gender that he has sex with. Neither was there any concept of disecting human sexual needs into ‘towards males’ and ‘towards females’. Basically, men are supposed to like sex with both men and women. Sex with men is unspeakable --- and that acts as a pressure on men. Sex with women without marriage is intolerable --- making sure that the power given to male-woman sex through marriage is not misused like the heterosexual society does. Sex is meant only for procreation.

No one will tolerate a man and woman to walk hand in hand in any traditional society. A heterosexual woman will be considered a ‘whore’ and a heterosexual man --- a characterless male or even a ‘wimp’.

You should also know, that while non-western societies have no concept of sexual orientation, they do have a strong concept of gender orientation, particularly for males, who are divided into two genders --- men and the third sex/ gender (which includes feminine males whether they have sex with men or women.)

It’s too early to talk about an ideal state. And that is not for me to say. Why should anyone listen to what I think is the ideal state. My job is only to point out the flaws in the present state of things. I have seen the silent torments of the majority of men who are disempowered to admit their oppression. When people are empowered enough to speak for themselves, they can then talk about the ideal changes.

But since you asked, I might tell you that I think that the best way for humans to live is without making sexual preference a matter of social identity – which tends to bind them into ‘either this or that’. Both the sexual needs --- for men as well as for women has a place in a man’s life. But both have different significance and time in his life. The youth is for bonding with men and to develop one’s masculinity. The latter part of adult life is for marriage and rearing families – and to get in touch with the feminine in oneself. That is the perfect way to achieve a balance in life.

The society should, in my opinion, promote such a lifestyle and give such opportunities to people that they can reach their full potentials. Some men will not fit into this system, and the society should give them enough freedom and opportunities to lead ‘different’ lives --- but within the mainstream society.

 

You're quite close. Though there are some key differences.

- I don't think sex should be encouraged to be casual --- whether with men or with women. Sex becomes a strong and positive human force when it becomes an agent in cementing relationships. When used just as a means of physical indulgence without any intimacy it becomes a negative force --- especially if the society promotes and glorifies this tendency --- as in the west today.

- Raising of children cannot be a trivial issue. There can be two arrangements for doing this. Both have been tried by past and present societies. Children can be raised both in man-woman marriage or by groups of women (the latter is closer to nature!) who could either be related or be lovers or clo- se friends or a combination of these.

 

One tactic that the heterosexual society adopts to reign in men's sexual needs for men is to kill the male only spaces and customs in the society. An important method employed is to implant women into male spaces. Combined with hostile heterosexual mores -- this completely decapacitate men's power to bond with other men --- the source of his natural masculinity --- without which he is a male but not a man.

Implanting women into the army to live and fight alongside men is an abominable move to finish off the last remaining male bastion where masculine men could be themselves -- without the pressures to 'prove one's masculinity' by having sex with women. The non-availability of girls was a perfect excuse to beat around the pressure. It was the last remaining spaces where straight men could bond with other men, although in suppressed and acknowledged forms and behind the masks of 'heterosexuality'. This suppressed venting of male sexual need for men came out in forms --- which were not so positive -- they needed a social excuse/ custom, were not based on love or open acknowledgment of a sexual need and could be seen to have a victim and an exploiter --- even though the victims would give their tacit support. Therefore, we have uneccessary but official routines in the military where you are required to strip naked every now and then. Military hazing was another excuse.

Why do you think the first thing the straight American soldiers in Iraq would do with men they captured was to strip them naked and make them indulge in sexual acts? The world had seen the pictures where men they suspected to be thieves were publicly stripped. Such a public humiliation of men has its own erotic value for men.

But inspite of the negative ways in which male sexual need for men came out, there was also a limited scope for a positive, although secret bonding. Heterosexualisation of military has put an end to it. It has also made real victims out of men who are now sexually humiliated in front of women -- something men don't really dig!

 

This is one of the most common misconceptions around. Look at Europe, with a NEGATIVE population growth. There's plenty of space available. If we in the first world don't start reproducing more, we shall be overwhelmed by the third world and see our nations turned into replicas of third world cesspools. We are seeing this right now in France.

 

Actually, I believe the disparity between the wealthy's birth rate and the poor's can be explained with simple r- and k-selected population models.

It's expensive to be wealth, maintain the status quo and have lots of kids. Buying them xBoxs, computers, cars, college. The wealthy have more to gain by investing their resources in a few offspring they can guarantee to survive rather than spreading the resources amongst many offspring.

Besides, in modern democracies the poor have very little voice. Just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean much trouble. The poor don't vote as a block. Hell, the poor hardly vote.

 

And yet, you are heterosexuals and we are not. This speaks volumes about the connection between heterosexuality and reproduction.

Heterosexuality requires a huge cost in terms of environment and a strong economy, apart from a heavily controlled and organised society in order to not result in a huge population. All we need to do is respect and free our nature and empower men to bond with other men -- and population will itself be within naturally sustainable limits.

Your post however points to another serious dimension of the issue we are discussing. And this goes back to the origin of the present mechanism to control male sexual behaviour and attitudes. It was a survival issue in those times --- to increase the population as men started inhabiting far flung areas. There was also intense competition with rival communities and numbers meant everything. Thus originated the need to divert male sexual energy from men to women (take any society that allows even a limited sexual bonding between men -- and you'll find that the male bonds are much preferred over the bonds with females!)

When Christianity and later its sister Islam wanted to establish themselves in this world to exploit the power that came from spirituality, they instinctively knew that numbers mean everything. Especially when their aim was to rule the world by expanding. Sexual bonds between men were their obvious target -- since it was not possible to bind male sexual energy to women unless you forced them away from men.

Unfortunately, Christianity and Islam have overpowered the world today with violence and aggression. And there is still intense competition to expand and consume all other ways of life closer to nature. Any non-Christian/ non-Islamic community in order to survive have to keep their numbers up -- inspite of the fact that the world population is way beyond the limits (a result of the mechanism to unnaturally control male sexual behaviour --- thus a result of heterosexuality!). Thus unfortunately heterosexuality still has political relevance today, even when it has negative natural relevance and is harmful to the individual.

The fear you have expressed is part of the same competition. But paradoxically heterosexuality while exploits the power given to male-female sex because of its reproductive value, wants to avoid the burden of procreation as is clear from evidences from your country.

Thus heterosexuality ends up harming nature and inflicting pain upon life whichever way it goes --- whether it accepts the responsibility of procreation and thus overpopulates this world with all the ill-effects of overpopulation.Or it tries to skirt procreation through environmentally harmful condoms, harmful hormones or anti-life abortions as well as morally unsound casual sex.

Whichever way it goes, heterosexuality will continue to oppress people, inflict pain upon them and make large numbers of naturally and biologically important people, redundant and wastes, thus continuing with its agenda of harming nature.

 

Maybe they don't vote, but they sure know how to riot, murder, and destroy as is happening in France. I don't dispute you logic on the cause of decreasing fertility among the wealthy. I simply believe it to be a BAD thing rather than a good thing. I believe measures should be taken to counter the factors you mention. Tax breaks, PSA's, whatever. At the very least, let's stop saying it's a good thing.

 

By the way, while still recognising your concerns, let me remind you that it was Christianity which swarmed all of Europe and wiped out the closer to nature cultures – including what they denigrated as ‘pagans’.

Not to mention that your ancestors invaded what today is called the third world and exploited its people and its riches for centuries resulting in their impoverishment today.

 

Most of it is their own people, their own neighborhoods. The wealthy have police forces and armies and courts. Unless the poor have easy access to guns, the press, or a reason to be upset outside of their own failures (an unfair market, oppression, etc.), they're reasonably manageable. Besides, France has a history of riots. It's how they do stuff there.

Remember, one wealthy American is literally worth dozens of poor Africans. When wealth determines one's relative power, population differences don't matter. The wealthy have access to a wider and more powerful array of social weapons, most importantly co-operation and organization.

Furthermore, r-selection among popualations with high energy demands is a BAD thing. That means when the wealthy reproduce lots, it's detrimental to the wealthy as a whole due to ingroup competition. Look at the relative value of a degree today compared to one half a century ago. Degree inflation because many more Americans can afford 4 years of schooling.

More offspring also put the wealthy at a disadvatange if they wish to raise their offspirng the way the wealthy raise offspring. More offspring means FAR more resources consumed for a wealthy family than a poor family with an equal number of children.

There's a qualitative difference, as well. Culturally, successful individuals have different reproductive strategies than the poor. By adopting the reproductive strategies of the poor, you remove yourself somewhat from the wealthy, both monetarily and culturally.

 

I don't often quote Mr. Stalin, but theres some truth there. It's getting too late so say more.