Heterosexuality is unnatural

Humans are also animals/ mammals, like you rightly said. Humans have the same basic instincts, drives and needs that animals have. The only difference between humans and animals is the more capable 'brain' of the humans. Now, if only humans display heterosexuality, then it is clear that it is because of the human brain. Human brain is known to indulge in manipulating, controlling and destroying nature (outside him as well as inside). This is just another proof that heterosexuality is unnatural.

No. Just stating that such basic instincts cut across species and are not limited to mammals.

What is the proof that you are not a rare minority?
What is the proof that you don't have a natural or a social disorder?
What is the proof that it is not becuase of a feminising of your brain, or a rare gene?
What is the proof that this is not really a transgender trait, and actually a disqualification for being naturally straight?
What is the proof that this is not an anomaly which is being imposed on the straight population because people like you have been given a lot of power on a platter basically by the religion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are right in principle. Only a minor thing.

There are evidences of some animal males who mate only with the females. Only these are transgendered males.

There is a big section of the male population which does not mate at all. Many of them are alpha males.

Eventhough a large chunk of males mate sometime in their life, the sexual desire if present is extremely limited. While, same-sex bonds tend to be lifelong and committed, if not always monogamous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sexuality is more about circumstance then preference. It is interesting to note the actions of animals. Yet without appropriate information about the sociological circumstance that drive there behaviour, it is inappropriate to denote sexual preference to animals based only on there behaviour.
Why and Why not have sex???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was just speaking for myself. An example of a particular pathology. Everyone reacts differently to stimuli. At the point where you realize youre not quite like other boys youve already recieved 4-7 years of imprinting and behavioral reacting to events and stimuli youll likely never recall for the rest of your life. So you dont know. Chances are though, that no part of the womb experience went towards determining your sexual orientation . Are you suggesting you brought it with you from the great beyond? Thats not very scientific., is it? ;P

 

I didnt say comparing humans to animals was degrading. I said that it degrades the argument. You have to keep it on the higher ground as much as possible in my opinion. Or maybe it depends on whether or not youre arguing for science sake or for people to have to ability to pursue the kind of relationships that makes them happy. Maybe Im short-sided ( i mean that) but when I consider it, i think even if you find evidence justifying same sex attraction through examples in nature, the people that are so strongly against it will simply ignore your research. Theyre ignorant and full of fear. If you take away our basic rights to pursue the things we love and these people will treat us like animals and leave us in a cage and never look back. Thats what is at stake here more than anything else. and this is why, in my opinion, our basic rights ought to be the issue and the argument before anything else.

 

The people who are strongly against it will ignore you as long as you whimper and plead. They will oppose you no matter what you say as long as they consider you weak. Once you put your foot down and become aggressive, they don't have a chance. The trick is to expose them.

The problem is that male-male attraction is so far been claimed only by gay men who are feminine and although they have great patience, they are meek.

The day straight men realise their oppression, they will not plead for people to listen to them. They will snatch their right --- by violence if need be.

While I don't dispute that, my basic goal is to find the truth --- the real truth. Even if it is unpleasant to me. I wish to understand nature honestly and find out what is wrong with today's world, and how we can make a difference to make it right. The 'right'/ nature's way of living will be suitable to everyone.

 

Wow.
I never thought I'd come to see such ineptitude on this board. No evidence for heterosexuality in nature?
1: As opposed to finding this evidence where else? lol
2: The fact that biological organisms exist is evidence for heterosexual behaviour.

Eeeek.... they let people this stupid use computers?

 

They why did you use your "cold fish" speech as a prelude to your bit about mammals? And why didn't you answer my question about humans being mammals?

So what? Even if no nonhuman species exhibits heterosexuality (I don't know, and I really couldn't care less), it is still obviously the case that humans do exhibit it. So if that heterosexuality is not rooted in the natural world, then in what is it rooted? The un-natural world? Pray tell, where is this world located?

 

How is a male fish fertilizing a female fish not heterosexual activity?

 

I guess because he didn't romance her before, during, or afterwards.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dum, dum dum dum, dumb!

 

I don’t exactly disagree with you’re saying about male-male attraction. Somehow though, I really believe that physical sex ought to be kept entirely out of it when talking about human rights. There is a whole lot of inappropriate assumption going on there in regards to sexual practicing.
And you cant exactly say that in nature, for animals there is evidence of heterosexuality or homosexuality. don’t those two words directly suggest that its either sexual attraction for the opposite sex or sexual attraction for the same sex? In nature, animals’ desire to procreate is instinctual and except possibly in very few examples, is chemically driven. Male Animals don’t think, “ wow, now that’s a hot female of my species. The way she walks and wears her hair really turns me on”. No, when the female is in heat or ovulating or otherwise is in the time where she’s ready for male seed, the male is aware of it through various chemical and physical symbols that make him rather helpless to the act. They don’t decided whether or not to fuck unless there is another instinctual selective process involved that they are once again rather helpless to not acknowledge. The same goes for males of a species gathering together for the rest of the season. They not thinking about having sex with the other males. Its only natural that they hunt together, socialize together, create a hierarchy together whatever. Females tend their babies. They serve another function after the pro creative necessities are done. Do you disagree? I mean it seems somehow apparent that there is a certain degree of choice in it that is shadowed or not by conditioning with humans whether we can see exactly what conditioning contributed to the outcome or not.. Do you think some of the stories you hear about males learning to engage in male-male sex in a prison situation are true? I honestly don’t know, but if they are at all true, how is it that there are so many hetero men going in that resort to homo activity out of what they consider necessity? The reason I feel so strongly that orientation in humans is conditioned and that if we had the ability to map the entirety of a persons life experiences from birth onward that we would find events or an event that played a key role(s) in determining orientation. As far as I can tell, when a person is newborn they have approx equal attraction for both parents emotionally and physically. Or maybe its better to say they lack aversion for physical and emotional intimacy equally in both sex parents. If you’ve had kids or known a couple to have a child, you see the father expressing affection for his baby boy in almost exactly the same way as the mother. Same for female children. So at what point and for what reason does a young boy and his father feel compelled to discontinue sharing such strong emotional and physical intimacy. I think its easy to speculate in many instances. I think in cases where young boys find themselves attracting to other males beyond the time when a lot of boys feel for whatever reason the need to chase girls, that perhaps it is like you think ( I think you think this way, I may be wrong)., that they are fundamentally traumatized by the extreme difference they experience in the female, and that because of that in combination with the natural ease in identifying with other males they come to totally reject the notion of getting with females ever, and continue to reside in the male-male comfort right through to the time when they start to mature sexually. At that point they are on a pathological road to obvious ends. No different really than a person who ends up being heterosexually oriented for different reasons. In either case I see it as a kind of dysfunction. Logically the more ideal and intended natural state of orientation, if we are going to speculate and chose, would be a person who is equally attracted to males and females alike both emotionally and sexually. Male exposure to females does not by necessity create trauma. Certainly it can but not necessarily.

 

Just as a note: calling people stupid as support for an argument generally isn't considered to be walking the high ground of intellectual exchange. heh

 

Actually, my derisive comment wasn't meant to be part of my argument. Still, now that you point it out, I know it might touch upon ad hominem, but one does have to consider the source of a supposed position.

 

Really! Can you say no to a woman who approaches you for sex without feeling less of a man!

 

No, it isn't. You've completely ignored the other question I raised, which was...

"So if that (edit: human) heterosexuality is not rooted in the natural world, then in what is it rooted? The un-natural world? Pray tell, where is this world located?"

What you don't seem to grasp here is that if heterosexuality is rooted in human brains, then it is natural by default, because by golly human brains are part of nature. There simply are no such thing as "unnatural occurences in nature". That is a simple fact that is true by definition.

But reproduction without sexual contact (the behavior you cited in fish) is not found in mammals at all.

Who cares if I am? The nature of science is such that a single counterexample proves a conjecture wrong.

I am a counterexample that proves yours wrong.

First, there are no such thing as "natural disorders". If something happens, then it happens naturally. And second, your claim is that heterosexuality is not natural. What does that have to do with social norms? (Never mind the fact that heterosexuality is unquestionably the social norm among humans).

If that is the case then it is still natural, and you are still wrong.

How could actual heterosexuality be construed as anything other than natural heterosexuality?

LOL. That's pretty funny.

 

What are you, 13 years old? Of course I can turn a woman down without feeling like less of a man. If I'm not attracted to her, if she's not my type, if she annoys the hell out of me, if she's my best friend's girlfriend, etc.

Seriously kid, you need to:

1. grow up and go out into the world to see how it really works and...
2. take some science courses.

Sheesh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

do you have issues with the subject?

 

Read my post carefully. The example of fish was in a different context. It was meant to show that male-female procreation in nature does take place without any sexual desire or activity --- proof that opposite sex desire is not required at all for procreation or to carry on one's genes.

The part about mammals was a different contention. That male-female sex for reproduction is not the same as heterosexuality.

Though I focus more on mammal behaviour, because that would be closer to human behaviour, studying other animals can also tell us a great deal about sex, gender and procreation. We can also draw a parallel with mammals unless there is a clear contracdiction.

I've already done that in a previous post.

In a man's world (straight man in the western case) what appears is often not the reality. But what would you know about straight men. You're heterosexual not straight.

In the western world, right where you're located. Especially, the U.S.
No other human society knows of heterosexuality.

 

You're exhibiting overconfidence. Before you make more fool of yourself, I'd suggest you read through the entire thread. You'll find answers for most of your questions.

The question you've raised has been dealt with several times. I'll do it again, no probs!

First the male fish fertilizes the eggs that have come out of the female fish, not the fish itself. Therefore no sexual activity --- only a pro-creative activity.

Second, male-female sex for reproduction is not heterosexual activity. Heterosexuality is characterised by a strong sexual desire often separate from a desire to procreate, a desire to emotionally bond and relate with females and an abhorence for sexual contact with males, while an inability to bond and relate with them (the last one has not been formally acknowledged, but is an integral part of heterosexuality).