Heterosexuality is unnatural

Surveys in cases like this will never tell you the truth. I have already shown how. To undestand that you'll have to understand the deep rooted pressures that men face. That's how masculinity works. That is how it is manipulated by the society.

Of course, what could be more direct proof of something when you experience that yourself. But when I have to prove it to others, it's not enough. And since survey have a serious drawback here, I'm proving this through indirect but sureshot ways. Because, there are more ways to get at the truth.

Although I also know through my personal + work experience that most men deep within them know this to be true (that almost all men have a sexual feeling for other men!), but this is just a deep seated, unchecked, vague instinct that they have. Because there is no way men can discuss these things and even when a man knows this for sure, he is without a voice in such matters. Such again is the nature of his oppression through Social Masculinity .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Excellent move. Previously it seemed unintelligible, now it is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great! Now that all the rubbish has been swept together into a single pile it can be conveniently deleted in one fell swoop. :bugeye:<P>

 

So you don't have to deal with it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Jamer R,

You are a moderator and you have got to do what you've got to do.

But can you tell me, if it is against the rule to have more than one thread on different aspects of supposedly one topic.

What makes you think that the topic: heterosexuality is unnatural (which is discussing the biological aspects of it) is the same as pressures of heterosexuality (which is discussing the social pressures men face) or the harmful effects of heterosexuality which is discussing the various ways in which forced heterosexuality has harmed humankind and nature.

Have you bowed down to pressure from those who don't want 'heterosexuality' to be challenged?

And indeed if it was against the rules, could you not have at least consulted me, so we could find the best way to do it, without disrupting the various componets of the thread.

I see this attempt as a way to scuttle the discussions by the those in power. Aren't you playing into their hands.

There have been in the past several posts discussing homosexuality --- all at the same time, as under:
- homosexuality is a disease
- Homosexuality --- is it natural
- Tolerance
- Is homosexuality biological or psychological.

Apparently the above was well within the rules.

Please tell me if I had violated any rules by creating various threads on different aspects of human sexuality?

Apparently you don't find the threads "science is not god" and "Science is not a perfect institution" as being against the rules? Are you supposed to take arbitrary decisions, and are you under no obligations to consult the initiator of the threads!

Otherwise I'll see this as an attempt to scuttle a serious discussion challenging the hegemony of heterosexuality.

regards

 

have no idea how to conduct my discussions now, because I don't know where one thread starts and where another ends. Thanks to your arbitrary decision, is this what you wanted to achieve? To stop my voice. You are not doing a great service to humankind then.

I'm going to take some time off now, hopefully, I'll feel like coming back again!

 

LOL! You're such a tease, Buddha!

 

My posts are childish? How so? You're the one with like 6 threads on exactly the same issue - are you saying this because you are pissed off that I spoke up and "James R"(the moderator) merged all of them together?
You accuse me of getting personal? Why, because I said your personal extrapolation was absurd? Your undying rant on this "issue" is fueled by your own personal bias and agenda - and yes you have repeatedly mentioned your "work" experiences.
Why are you telling me to grow up - what have I said that is immature?

If your helping people come out of the closet I respect that totally. I think some people need that kind of social support - but if your going to argue that 95% of men have homosexual desires then nobody will listen to you.

What great "service" are you "doing for mankind" by arguing that 95% have sexual desires for other men? If you want to actually address a real social problem like homophobia then please do so.

 

You cannot have rational discussions with someone who is as delusional as Buddha1, and nothing good will come of any attempts to do so. This is why all his “heterosexuality is unnatural/evil/wrong” threads should be deleted. But the moderators are not interested in dealing with his ridiculous ranting and trolling (beyond grouping it all together).<P>

 

Silence.

 

apt name...yes. you mean book burnings dont you?

dont agree with another's idea? burn them!
them and their books.

IF you cant get them, burn their books.

if you cant find their books, seek out moderators to delete their ideas

 

This is a science forum, Duendy. Bhudda1 is free to promote his ill-conceived, unsubstantiated, unscientific, self-contradictory, biased, agenda driven drivel elsewhere. Indeed I shall defend his right to do so, up to the point where I am required to give up chocolate. I just do not want him to do it here, without paying at least token respect to the principles of science.

 

Seems my single word has done something. I call it the flutterby effect!

I'm listening to Siouxsie and the Banshees right now. A small round of applause for that Siouxsie!

 

Kiss them for me, please !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Though I did find his theories to be interesting. Not quite the thing that can be put under a microscope, I don't think.

I still need to email him. I said I would. He was going to talk more about his counseling work.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, you like the young men, eh? Simply fantastik!

 

Here’s another thing that’s “unnatural”:

Internet Forums.

 

Good to see you're back!

Can you explain what you mean by "not quite the thing that can be put under a microscope!"