Heterosexuality is unnatural

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

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

    ....'science' which you and yer materialist reductive positivists had appropriated as your own 'science'. shhhheeezus how behind the times are you??
    look, SCIENCE covers a huge range of approaches, not just strictly materialistic. there is science now which is examining panpsychic theories of old, and yoi know about m-brane theoretical science etc etc. ,,,,we do no want your fascist interpreatation of scientific endeavour burning people, bpoks, and deleting messages and making this forum a no-go area for creative exploration. tell yer mates!

    challenge sure. but dont call for scapegoating. it most decidedly is NOT scienc
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member


    I shall attempt.

    People call your theories unscientific, and unprovable (improbable). You say that people are defending compulsory heterosexuality so many that fit your theory will never admit to such.

    It is hard to determine or quantify sexuality.
    Things can be observed under a microscope. Chemicals can be identified or isolated by mass spectrometry. Numbers can be counted. Stars can be charted.

    Who has mapped the human mind? Who has catalogued the heart of man?
    Who has distilled the essences of sexual attraction to a satisfactory level of purity?

    That is the problem. I think, anyway.
    Huh? I'm really just a dodo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member


    In my honest opinion, I don't think the theories were ill-conceived.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    But, I am here to talk about Siouxsie and the Banshees.
  8. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    1. I don't think I am a materialist.
    2. I am a reductionist, but I combine that with pantheistic multiperson solipsism, which does require a little bit of uber alles .
    3. I try to be positive.
    Which I currently place along with the Brothers Grimm. Entertaining, perhaps replete with morals, but ultimately a fairy tale.
    Do try to get a grip Duendy. I am as far removed from being a fascist as you can be without being King of Denmark.

    I have never burnt anyone apart from myself, by accident. I consider book burning to be a capital offence. What message deletions are you waffling about? When you come down, let us know where you land.
  9. duendy Registered Senior Member

    DoN't wory i am earthed . SEE previous quesy?
  10. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Duendy, just a harmless question: why do you make such weird spelling mistakes???

    Not to be dumb, or insulting, but just wondering.

    And where is that figurehead?
  11. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    If I'm not mistaken, sexuality and its nuances falls heavily within the boundaries of psychology. Psychology isn't exactly a strict science, as far as materialism goes. Especially when it comes to explaining gayness.

    Ever seen some of the formulas spouted by conservative christianity as to why people "go gay"??? It passes itself off as science.

    Then again, I'm a dodo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Giambatista, one thing you must realise --- the sooner you realise the better, don't take people, especially men at their face value. And especially with men who have a vested interest in keeping truth under wraps. That some people say I'm being unscientific doesn't mean that they believe I"m unscientific. You have noticed how they avoid the evidences I've given.

    When I've come on a scientific discussion forum, I intend to discuss things scientifically. But like I have stated before and many others will testify, science is far more than 'peer-reviewed' papers. Any layman with a scientific bent of mind is capable of using scientific observation and analysis.

    Every assertion of mine and every evidence --- whether empirical or scientifically proven evidence, can be put under the microscope and analysed.

    Why do you think the vested interest group is avoiding to look at them at all.Because if they were to examine it they cannot negate its veracity. So the best thing is to insist on 'red tapism' (peer-reviewed papers!).

    Yet there is no peer-reviewed study that has determined the percentage of males that have sex with females in the wild? Does that prevent the vested interest group from saying that heterosexual is the majority.

    It is not about science or peer-reviwed papers. It is about attempts to stop truth from coming out.

    Bagemihl is peer-reviewed. I have not had any response on him, even though I have used his findings to support many of my assertions.

    The first step in beating the vested interest group is to acknowledge that they are not sincere, and are only there to disrupt. Since they are not sincere you'd be a fool to get what they're asking because they will not acknowledge it anyways.
    Yet the western society divides men between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
    Sexual need cannot be quantified but its existence can be proven through a scientific and logical method.
  13. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    That there are people who although have opposed me have later come to 'generally' agree with me, that there are people that have left a discussion midway abruptly when confronted with indefeatable argument/ evidence, that I have been given so much importance --- even if it is to abuse/ accuse/ dismiss me, shows that my assertions and evidences have substance.

    Like I said, one way to count your success is by counting the number of enemies you've made.

    If I were indeed a mad blabbering mouth -- people would easily have brushed me off. Just start a thread saying the sun is flat. Some idlers will come and laugh at you, but then everyone will leave you alone --- for no one in this world has time to waste at insignificant/ foolish/ non-existent things.
  14. duendy Registered Senior Member

    well the post of mine this question of yours followed was prtty alright actually a typos go, but i know what you mean....here my explantion

    at the moment the batteries are running out in my keyboard, so may things are going wrong
    also consider my keybords is 9" by 4"...!!
    often times you hit keys and symbol doesn't appear. i tend to look down sos dont notice.............some replies take thought a i type so i have to be carfeul cause i get cut of from internet fter short tim....so there's pressure
    am a bad typist too........i sometimes will playwith language. ie., insted of typin 'question' ill type slang 'quesy' which is what some Northerners say....also other dialects. whyyyy caus i'm Creaaative dahlin
  15. beyondtimeandspace Everlasting Student Registered Senior Member

    Which is why, after having read many posts by you and rolling my eyes in amusement and the silliness of your arguments, this will be the only post I have made, and will make in response.

    You've certainly said lots, talked about a lot of things that happen and that go on. There are things you say that are true, but true in ways that you don't think about. The problem is, you've taken what's true, and applied a spin on them that doesn't actually necessarily result from the data that you've presented. In other words, you've interpreted the information, the very spcifically selected data, in a very subjective way.

    Guess what. I'm heterosexual, not homosexual. I was not pressured into heterosexuality, I simply am, like the majority of males on this planet. I have not had sex, and I am 22 years old. I have planned, and intended and continue to intend that my first sexual partner be had in marriage. I would be embarrassed and upset if I were put in an awkward situation involving sexuality, I would also be hurt if ever taken advantage of sexually. I was born and raised in Canada, which is entirely part of "Western Civilization" and culture. I can tell you that the majority of my very good male friends would feel the same way I do about sexuality, and would also hold the same views that I hold concerning heterosexuality (or very similar to my own views).

    You've misunderstood the activities of heterosexual males in western civilization as being due to the fact that it's a "heterosexual" society, when actually it has more to do with the publicity of sex and sexuality more than it does with heterosexuality. It also has a lot to do with discipline, and what parents allow their kids to get away with growing up.

    You've interpreted the sets of data as having specific reference to heterosexuality, when actually there are a whole host of other reasons those sets of data exist. Why did you direct them to heterosexuality? I can only assume it has something to do with your own sexuality. Not because I think you have some kind of agenda, but because how we are is how we think. Thus, you interpreted the data according to your own mental framework, which must surely arise from the kind of person you are. And if the data concerns sexuality, you'll interpret it and understand it with respect to your own.

    Concerning animals, I don't know where you get the idea that gender roles don't exist. Particularly that bit about there being no nuleic family (except in very specific and rare cases). You mention birds. Certainly! Penguins being one kind of bird that has the father and mother care for its infant(s). How about Elephants? Girraffs? Deer? However, how many different examples one can think of is irrelivant. The fact is, there are many different social structures in the animal kingdom, the nucleic family being one of them. I ask you this, why, just because few animals have such a family structure, should we think of humans as being abnormal in operating in this way? Why could we not consider humans as simply being one of those species that works this way? Just as some species work in colonies, others only the female raises the offspring, while even others the offspring are completely left to fend for themselves (Sea Turtles, for example).

    As I said, you interpret the data according to your own mental framework, just like anyone else. However, this most certainly doesn't make you right, and I will continue to be amused by your, in my opinion, rediculous spin on the world.
  16. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    After fifty two pages of mostly crap it's nice to see someone making sense again. It's a shame it wont last, as BTAS has said this will be his only post in the thread. Thank you for a brief glimmer of reality Beyond.
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    You are a layman beyondtimeandspace and you can continue to hold any biased opinion that you may have. I'm speaking from the strength of putting ten years of my prime life into understanding male gender and sexuality. You may accuse me of having motives or taints or being biased, because what I"ve found does not suit how the society has raised you, but unless you can prove your standpoint with evidences, you will be just stating your own opinion, which cannot be said about me. Also, the same thing that you say about me can also apply to you --- you could also have a skewed view of this world because of who you are.

    And the fact that you just want to present your veiws and run away, fearing a rebuttal........
    Unless you take up specific cases and show me how my interpretations are not valid, I or any neutral person is not likely to take you seriously. I have said that over and over again, that if someone can show me or my analysis to be wrong, I will gladly change my views. You see, I am in search of truth, and if nothing else, people on this board will know me for sincerely.

    To your credit, you are amongst the few people opposing me who has not only acknowedlged that I have been giving evidences all along, but the fact that they are true. Most of my opposition is just scared stiff to touch the evidences --- even when they go on opposing the issue for pages on end.

    I don't know what you mean by heterosexuality. If you mean you like women sexually, well so do I. But I don't think the fact alone makes someone heterosexual. If you mean that you look forward to marriage or are comfortable letting a woman into your life, well I am not.

    Heterosexual is as artificial a construct as homosexuality.

    Also, to your credit, you don't seem to be lying about your sexuality --- and you're amongst the few honest ones who are more likely to be telling the truth rather than lying. Because for one thing you are not using this statement as a power assertion.

    But you must understand that your personal feelings, even if they are honest prove nothing. And apart from that no one really cares here who you want to sleep with. At least I don't.

    In my observation of the rare person who is exclusively into women, like you I suppose (though I can never be sure!) is more likely than not to have a strong feminine element in him, which is against the spirit of the word straight, as non-heterosexual societies see it.

    And how can you tell that the majority of your good male friends would feel the same way? Many of them may like to think that is how they feel, and yet many others will be consciously hiding their feelings. You have to understand that you live in a society which is very hostile to masculine same-sex bonds (and supporting homosexuality adds to that hostility).

    The things are not very different here in my own country. When I was in the university I too exaggerated my sexual interests in women much more than they actually were. I too slept with women, I couldn't care less about. And my friends would think of me as a die-hard (what you'd call) 'heterosexual'. And after I started working on 'masculinlity' I realised how much pressure exists on men. Once I became couscious about gender and sexuality I found out that young men that I live with, who appear so 'heterosexual' from outside, harbour and struggle with same-sex feelings within them. Especially the masculine and macho ones.

    What men are really and what they show from outside are often two opposite things! But truly heterosexual women, homosexuals and true heterosexuals are likely to take men at their face value because that's how they see the world. The three of them put together only constitute a small minority.

    If you can just answer one thing to my satisfaction, I'll change all my views:

    Why are there such extreme pressures on men to be heterosexual, if indeed it is so natural for men?

    corollary questions: Why are men given such extreme powers when they prove their 'heterosexuality', if men would anyways do it? Why is sex with women considered to be the sole proof of 'manhood', if it is something that men enjoy doing?

    So you agree that discipline -- that is artificial environment and pressures are an important factor in making men heterosexual? But you're supporting it.

    Does it tell us about where you're coming from?

    If you could analyse the evidences I presented instead of analysing me, you would have had more success convincing me.

    My answer to your point is that had I been a homosexual, and if it were only about me, I would gladly have joined the fledgling 'gay' movement in my society. Why do I need to fight against such odds here? I have literally have had heated and hostile arguments with homosexuals --- both in my country and in forums such as these. And these arguments are much more heated than it ever gets with the so-called heterosexuals.

    And although, yes a lot of what I know I found out through my own personal experiences, my own personality was important just to that extent --- that it gave me the key to the real world behind the forced heteroseuxal facade.

    I found out that the majority of men were like me, and not like the heteroseuxal image I was projecting. That was when I figured there was something immensely wrong and discovered this huge consipiracy against men.

    a.) I have not merely said that nucleic families don't exist. Leave alone nucleic families, opposite-sex sexual bonds don't exist in nature (except in birds and a few others). That is a big thing in itself --- and a strong case against heterosexuality. And that opposite-sex bonds don't exist (almost) at all amongst the mammals.

    b.) Add to it the fact that mammals have from 90% - 100% (depending on the species) incidences of same-sex activities. And a lot of it is in the form of 'masculine' sexual bonds between males --- which are many a times, if not always, life-long.

    c.) Emotional bonds, long term or short term is something which is completely unheard of between male and female mammals (o.k. there are rare cases in each species). Male-female sex is limited only to what is required for procreation. The 'couples' often don't meet again, ever. Not all males have sex with females in their lifetime. And those who do it only do it in the latter half of their life. Males have sex with females, like once in a year. And most males have it only a couple of times in their lifetime. You can yourself compare the two --- male-female and male-male sexual needs amongst mammals.

    d.) It is the same with Giraffes, elephants and deers. About 94% of Giraffes have been found to form same-sex sexual bonds (and no male-female bonds --- sexual or otherwise!). Elephants are 'notorious' for same-sex bonds, and in their life span of about 40 years approach females only when they are about 35 years (the last data may not be exactly correct, but is near it, this is what they said on the discovery channel!).

    e.) humans are mammals too. And if only as an hypotheses, we were to believe that humans are basically different from other mammals, including primates, then how do you explain that the human society has created such an intricate mechanism of extreme pressures (including extreme punishments and rewards) to prop up both marriage and heterosexuality.

    I have already shown how mammals can also be made 'heterosexual' by pressurising them (see the example of domiciled horses). Obviously the same is happening with the humans. Why do you think it is otherwise?

    All the above are based on accepted scientific reports.

    Please re-interpreet the data according to your mental framework? No matter how you try, it is difficult to justify heteroseuxality through nature.

    Like I said, being a layman, you can choose to believe in what suits you. Especially, because just by my saying so (no matter how much I back it with evidence), the society is not going to change. But subconsciously it will trouble you --- again and again, that this world as you know it, is a lie. And you're adding to that lie, by refusing to back the truth.
  18. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Scientific outlook: What appears IS the reality! the only reality!

    Isn't it?
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Especially, if it suits you!
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    then why do we have genitals?
    the human race has genitals for a reason
    i don't know about you buddha
    i thought that maybe you were a man searching for some answers
    it seems now i was mistaken
    please don't take that as an insult
    it is more my fault than yours
  21. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    I really don't have time for guessing puzzles.

    I think you discuss on a very superficial level, so its kind of irritating for me when I'm discussing something in depth and then you want to know the abc of it.

    Genitals serve the purpose of reproduction not of heterosexuality. I've already shown how the two are different. You don't want another 52 pages to discuss that do you?
  22. Satyr Banned Banned

    Buddha1….Buddha1…all mighty.
    So many words, so little time.

    An axe to grind an exit find.
    For all that hidden misogyny.​
  23. Satyr Banned Banned

    This thread is so absurd it deserves a second posting.

    If genitals don’t make us heterosexual, then our mouths don’t make us omnivorous.
    In fact we can eat anything, as we can fuck anything, but the purpose of both is specific and the accompanying desires and tastes are meant to lead us to naturally productive behaviours.

    I can eat a rock, but I’ll not find much nutrition in it, since my stomach can digest certain things. So I am attracted to animal or plant matter.

    My asshole is made to defecate but I can stick things in it and call it love.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In a similar way my genitals can be used to fuck a pig, if I’m ill enough to want to, yet they evolved for a particular purpose and so the accompanying desires for a particular sexual typewith a particular orifice - called a vagina - becomes necessary to facilitate intercourse, which will produce an offspring.

    Sex and sexual identity has no other purpose than this. Even social unions are naturally produced to create safer procreative environments, giving rise to ulterior usages for sexual acts.
    Within natural group dynamics only the dominant male and female procreate, in most social species. In others only one or a couple of dominant males and all females.
    The rest are relegated to inferior, supportive a sexual positions.
    Males become effeminate in behaviour, due to this. Testosterone levels drop in subordinate males, making them more feminine.

    Now if a memetic ideal convinces me that sticking my penis into an asshole is ‘natural’ or even preferable or if a genetic mutation, caused by a hormonal imbalance, makes by brain function like a woman’s, then I guess any natural program can be diverted and corrupted, just like any computer program can be corrupted by a virus.

    Homosexuality is a virus - a human genetic virus that attempts to overcome its genetic failings by becoming mimetically reproducible.

    See my thread


    Here we must differentiate between (1)the act of homosexual intercourse and (2) actual homosexual attraction.

    The first is a natural phenomenon which establishes social order and acts like a display of dominance or a way of alleviating social or sexual stress.
    In desperate circumstances – such as prisons -, where females are not available - or enough of them are not anyways - it acts as a substitute for the original desire and a means of releasing sexual energy and establishing social status.

    Here we see how the ancient Greeks used gender isolation to create an artificial environment within which bonding would occur and sexual competition would cease, resulting in more coherent army groups.
    This is how a meme imposes itself on a gene.
    We can say that abstinence is also unnatural, since as living beings we are naturally inclined to procreate, yet ascetic memetic ideals can make a mind act in opposition to its own natural tendencies. Religion is such a memetic imposition on genetic programming.
    Ideals {memes} attempt to impose their programming on instinct or they attempt to replace or divert natural inclinations, programmed into our genetic codes, and use them for ulterior motives.

    The second is a product of hormonal imbalances during gestation. Here the mind has no desire to have sex with the opposite sex whatsoever, but is attracted exclusively (let us disregard bisexual intermediating states) to its own. Its physical body is masculine and its mind, its psychology and behaviour is feminine.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page