Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Buddha1, Jun 11, 2005.
I've already proved how this is not so.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It’s true that man’s most human civilisations adopted the institution of marriage at one stage of their development. But this was really meant to ensure the maximum male participation in the reproductive process. Because these settling civilisations needed more population in order to survive, than nature could afford. Ancient men were as irregular in mating with females as are animals.
In fact all men were forced into marriage and men were given a lot of social powers to encourage them to get married. Men still refused to part with their freedom and this is where they started putting pressure and brought in severe punishments for refusing to get married.
However, marriage in none of these societies amounted to anything close to ‘heterosexuality’. Bonding or intimacy with women is still rare and disdained in traditional societies. Even in the precursor of modern western society the ancient Greece. Marriage was an institution whose purpose was only to produce and raise children with man’s participation.
E.g., in my traditional society, marriage is a must but this is a social obligation. Men get married and produce children but don’t have relationships with their wives.
Marriage is not a ‘natural’ institution and men are really the losers, inspite of the superficial social powers granted to them. Your modern western society has eased the pressures to get married and removed the social punishments. You know how few men get married in the west.
It is funny though how many of these scientists distort evidences of these tribal cultures in order to show them as ‘heterosexual’. Just as they do with wild-life.
Christianity has had a lot of influence on these ancient tribal cultures, most of which now have started wearing clothes and looking down upon male sexual bonds – two signs of being ‘civilised’.
No religion supports heterosexuality. They all supported institutionalizing male-female marriage for the sole purpose of raising children. Although religions created the ground for modern heterosexual society by generating hostility against masculine bonds.
These religions had painstakingly created a society where they suppressed all other forms of human sexual relationships (including non-marital male-female relationships) so that marriage could be sustained for bringing up children.
Heterosexuals derived all their powers from this arrangement. However they have no right to any special privileges without the institution of marriage, if other forms of non-procreative relationships are suppressed. And there’s no reason why such non-marital social unions not be treated worse than male-male bonds. Because male-female bonds have been given state patronage to support procreation they have a greater responsibility.
Heterosexuality is the ideology which supports institutionalizing male-female casual/ non-marital relationships without the burden of procreation. Here male-female relationships become an end in themselves. Thus they have become as useless to these religions as male-male love bonds.
Heterosexuals don’t want the burden of procreation but want all the privileges granted by the religion/ society to male-female relationships to be rid of the burden of procreation.
I’m not against the practice of marriage. But I’m against promoting heterosexuality.
Why do you westerners think this world is divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality? --- They are not even two opposite forces. For us heterosexuality and homosexuality happen in the same western society. It’s not that if one argues against heterosexuality one is arguing for homosexuality. Amongst my most ardent opposers are homosexuals.
Surely, homosexuality is a modern western phenomenon. However it has well been documented that sexual bonds between (straight) men was institutionalised and celebrated in original tribal cultures only a few of whom remain today in their original forms today (in Africa, New Papa Guinea and Indian ocean islands).
You are already worrying about an alternative society. First we have to clearly find out what afflicts the present one. Any society which is based on the natural needs and aspirations of people and is accommodative of human diversity will only be good for everyone. There are enough examples to follow in the way our ancestors lived before the advent of Christianity/ Islam.
In a traditional society we still have large joint families where children are raised jointly. The heterosexual nuclear families are considered a degradation of society. In fact collective raising of children may not be such a bad idea. Mammals are supposed to live that way.
And what option does a heterosexual society gives --- more and more single mothers with careers trying to raise children, and they do such a bad job. I mean it’s the pits. You don’t only need wealth to bring up children. Women have been so isolated by the heterosexual society in the primary goal of their life. So it’s not only the men who suffer in such a set up.
And look at how a heterosexual society with nuclear male-female family treats its elderly. It throws them into old age home like wastes. A heterosexual society is an immoral, irresponsible and unnatural society.
Men by the way are supposed to go out and earn money --- something which is being increasingly snatched from them by the heterosexual society and given to women. Men are supposed to run the society, defend it against enemies, engage in politics, create arts and culture --- apart from creating great legends of masculine love and companionships.
Fatherhood is great, and one of the important lollipops given to men to bind them into marriage is the ownership of children (who carry his name). But in the end it’s not natural for men to spend their life just raising kids. At least they should be given other options. They can do it in the latter part of their lives.
And as for ‘screwing’ it is a very heterosexual/ homosexual idea --- not a majority thing.
Heterosexuality is morally corrupt and there are more proofs than I have already given.
So, where is it?
Isn’t he the guy who invented that great hoax of a science --- psychology?
For one thing we did not have a negative influence like Christianity.
You seem to revel in simplifying things to prove your biases.
Talking about homosexuals and homosexuality is a sureshot way to mislead and distort a discussion on masculine bonds. Queers are not known for their valour, they are marginalized and besides they live in an extremely hostile society. The day straight men own up their sexual need for other men, they’ll beat the blue out of ‘heterosexuals’.
In any case they kill ‘homosexuals’ not because they hate male-male desire but because they hate femininity in men (not pardonable but that’s the way it goes!). Besides they are driven by religious hatred.
By no means are these men who kill true heterosexuals. They are misguided straight men. A true heterosexual is more likely to be a harmless fellow, more interested in merging with the womankind than having any interest in either bonding with or competing with other guys.
By the way, in my country recently village men killed a heterosexual pair --- because the conservative society did not approve of their marriage (they were cousins). No one messes with male-female relationships in the traditional areas of my society --- only socially approved marriages are allowed. A woman and a man cannot dare to walk hand-in-hand in public or show any kind of heterosexual emotion. It's a matter of family honour and in conservative areas people can get killed for doing this.
So these things prove nothing.
True heterosexuals are a miniscule minority. The straight men are caught in intricate webs of social masculinity. Heterosexuals can bask in borrowed straight glory only as long as straight men are bound in chains. Set them free and you’ll see for yourself.
Don’t try to hide behind self-invented theories. Animals know what they want sexually, they are not blindly sexual.
When men have sex with men they are just being sexual and when they have it with women it’s a preference? Do I see a desperate bid to fit into social stereotypes here?
You are trying to portray yourself as fitting into heterosexual stereotypes – but these stereotypes are not real.
Anyway, a male who experiments with sex with males in a heterosexual society where sex with women is forced and there is such a terrible cost on male-male sex, has to have more than a little need to bond sexually with men.
The society is just a little bit lenient on kids, and since it allows it for adolescents claiming it’s a phase, you feel emboldened to own up this much. But what men will accept regarding their need for such relationships is only a tip of the iceberg as far as their real needs are concerned.
There are no two ways of bonding. Bonding and competitiveness do not go hand in hand.
A true heterosexual male desires to be subjugated by a masculine female. A true straight man avoids intimate relationships with females, or has distant/ aloof relationships if living under the pressures of a heterosexual society. But he always goes for extra feminine gals. A true heterosexual male is a lesser-man.
On the other hand, all masculine traditions whether in the east or west have insisted upon keeping away from women. The Samurais or Greek warriors did not bond with their women. They married them in their later youth/ early middle-age but because of social pressures or out of a desire for children. Samurai warriors are known to have kept a sword next to them in bed with their wives, because there was never an intimacy between them. They shared true love affairs only with another Samurai warrior. There is still a saying in macho Afghan society ----- “women are for procreation and men for pleasure/ bonding”. Indian macho mythological figure Lord Hanuman insists on keeping away from the shadow of women and so do his macho followers to this day.
You don’t even seem to be a true heterosexual (though I could be wrong!). Just someone who is desperately trying to fit. And driven by religious hatred against male-male bonds. But your anti-male views do not qualify you to be straight man either.
Don’t count on it! Most of the guys pretending to be heterosexuals are true straights --- far from being heterosexuals, if given a real choice they will never have a relationship with women in their life.
You mean we live in a society that forces men to bond sexually with men? You must be dreaming.
If you can accept the truth, the statistics are from 5% - 10% of the male population. But this truly heterosexual orientation doesn’t rule out sexual desire for males. It only becomes secondary to a sexual desire for women. Plus heterosexual men, like homosexual men tend to be attracted to feminine males. The difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is that homosexual men have sexual desire for males as their primary sexual drive. Men who have no sexual desire at all for any kind of males are something like 2% - 5%.
You thrive on stereotypes don’t you! Come out of them and face the truth.
Really? And America has found the way to preserve this male identity? By feminizing men and making them subservient to masculinised women? It can happen only in America.
The only thing we have proved so far is that there is no heterosexuality in nature.
My observations do not come from one society. They include first hand data from various societies, including western. But they also include a study of various other societies including from the history. I’ve also studies ancient masculine traditions and warrior cultures. But most of all I’ve studied how a heterosexual society oppresses masculine men, because right now my country is going through intense heterosexualisation under the garb of ‘westernisation’.
No it doesn’t. There is absolutely no sexual compatibility between males and females --- neither at the physical level nor at an emotional level. Yes the vagina is only built to take in sperms from a man not to achieve orgasm through the penis. Even the orgasmic patterns of men and women are so different – and that includes their timing. Surely if nature intended them to be sexually compatible or to indulge in sexual activities (beyond what is needed for procreation) it would not have made it so near impossible to achieve.
If anatomy of humans was really meant for heterosexual relationships there would not be any need for unnatural contraception --- neither for environmentally disastrous condoms nor for harmful pills or hormones or for that demasculinising surgery called ‘vasectomy’. Surely, nature cannot support heterosexuality and never intended it, neither amongst animals nor amongst humans. The modern society uses technology to make it possible.
And if anatomy/ biology really supported heterosexuality the society did not need such an elaborate and oppressive social system to propagate and prop-up heterosexuality and to suppress other relationships so that it can survive.
Only a heterosexual or homosexual brain would think of anal-intercourse. The majority does not.
A mixed gender society itself is unnatural. And if a man naturally becomes heterosexual what is the need to pressurize him? And to offer him innumerable social rewards?
How do you think is homosexual behaviour cultured?
A man will not act against his basic sexual need or instincts even if he is given social points/ rewards for doing so. Note that no society rewards men for forming masculine bonds. There are huge benefits accompanying male-female bonds. A man will only go against his natural sexual needs if he is severely punished for not doing so. No society punishes men for not forming male bonds. On the other hand the punishments for not being heterosexual are severe for straight men in a heterosexualised society.
Therefore your contention that a culture can make men form masculine bonds against their nature is totally unfounded, although the same cannot be said about heterosexuality.
Here we go again! I’ve already proved that you don’t need a heterosexual identity for procreation.
It’s foolishness to underestimate the animals.
Animals have a procreative urge in the latter part of their life. They want to transfer their genes, and that is the driving force although this does not rule out a secondary/ transient sexual attraction for females.
It’s one thing to not agree. It’s another to prove that you’re not speaking out of a bias --- to give evidence.
Relationships between two masculine gendered (straight) males are not the same as homosexuality. It has been well documented now that intimate bonds between males that include sexuality are common amongst animals.
Male-female relationships have enjoyed state patronage at the cost of other relationships for very long. After enjoying all these privileges they have a responsibility to fulfill and can’t afford the luxury of non-procreative relationships based on romance that heterosexuality signifies. Of course it’s only my view that men and women should only enter into marriage for procreation purposes – and if they find romance within that relationship fine. But since they have been propped up by the society, these marriages must be sanctioned by the community.
The other option is that the society should stop giving all patronage to male-female relationships, and since other forms of relationships have been at the receiving end for so long and have been unfairly degraded they should now be propped up by the society to make it a level’s playing field. The society should stop pressurizing people to enter into heterosexual relationships by scrapping all artificially introduced heterosexual customs and spaces. Both men and women will themselves disown heterosexuality within one generation. There’ll be no need to devise laws to end this unnatural practice.
Well you don’t need to be a genius to figure that out. If animals really cared for heterosexual sex they would want it again and again --- and not part ways after doing just what is needed to ensure that they have passed on their genes. And where procreation happens without having sex they don’t even touch the opposite sex (like in the case of fish!). Females seem to care only for producing and raising their children and they don’t let the male near them unless it’s time to produce babies. Surely, if there is a sexual drive present for the opposite sex, it’s secondary, transient and minimal. This does not rule out them having fun in the process --- but it’s not something that they really care about or something that rules their lives.
If anyone is guilty of reading their feelings or worse still of enforcing their (heterosexual) ideology on poor animals are the upkeepers of the heterosexual society. They keep telling us the animals are heterosexual when their behaviour clearly points otherwise. E.g. in the discovery channel programme that showed fish mating (and not even touching each other with a barge pole) where the fish never met again after the eggs laid down by the female were fertilized by the male, the commentators still called this mating process ‘love’ and that the male is looking for ‘love’.
The same programmers will try to find far-fetched explanations for clear-cut evidences of same-sex sexual bonding in the wild, even when the animals are ready to die for each other. Like the incident I mentioned earlier of two male raccoons. These scientists will fanatically defend the sexual selection theory of Darwin when the truth speaks against it.
Trying to be politically correct, eh?
But you’re basically wrong.
Animals know instinctively what they want. It’s not that they will have sex with or bond with whoever is available.
Both male and female animals clearly reject heterosexual bonding. Male-female may mate for procreation. But their emotional need does not lie in there.
It’s wrong to say that animals (or humans for that matter!) are just sexual with no pre-set direction to their sexuality.
Like the climber plant which is predestined to grow upwards will – if left on its own – only climb up by finding the nearest upright tree or building or cliff. It’ll never go down even if there is ample space down below. If there’s o space to grow upwards, the climber may grow horizontally (and never downwards) but its growth will be retarded.
Now if you want this plant to grow downwards you will have to adopt two strategies:
a): tie each shoot of the plant down below with threads. You’ll have to force/ adjust each new spurt of growth of the shoot to grow downwards because no matter how much you try the new growth will tend to grow upwards. In other words you will have to keep up the pressure continuously.
b): prevent the plant from going up at all costs. No matter how hard you try, the plant will keep throwing new shoots which will try their best to find an upright thing to hang on to. You’ll have to clip these shoots in the bud or the plant will nourish these them with all its energy. So either train them downwards or clip them.
If you do all this you’ll manage to grow the plant downward. However, its growth will be severely retarded and it’ll not grow to its full potential. It may also develop serious shortcomings and will have a stressful and shorter life.
It’s the same with human sexuality. Males are programmed by the nature to bond emotionally and sexually with males. Humans try to change this natural tendency through social mechanisms/ pressures which train, punish and reward men to bond with women and stay away from male-male bonds. It’s possible to achieve this, but it does not mean at all that sexuality is neutral and just dependant on social environment. And forcing men away from their natural direction will make them lesser men incapable of growing and living to their full natural potential. And of course it will give rise to stress and diseases within them.
Inter species sex is not a common animal behaviour.
I love this. Internet crackpots can be such good entertainment. <img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/cwm.gif">
Yeah, that’s right Buddah1, everyone is wrong except you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All you’ve done is crap on endlessly with your thoroughly subjective personal interpretations of nature along with your hand-picked examples. You haven’t provided one reference to an objective measurable piece of science to substantiate your viewpoint (that I have seen in your threads on this subject). Not one. It’s all nothing but your own unsupported ramblings and conjecture.
In light of this, there is only one conclusion regarding your hypothesis…
<center>Buddha1 = internet crackpot.</center>
Of course, I’ll retract that if you show me some science.
(Hint: science does not equal your personal opinion.)<P>
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Signs of frustration already…..I’ve encountered such responses before…..when you challenge someone’s power that they have held unchallenged for so long, they get mad, especially when they don’t deserve that power, and cannot earn it in a level’s playing field.
However if what I’m saying is such crap then you or someone else can easily prove me wrong. It’s no use harping on ‘accepted’ social positions. If you are on the side of the truth then you should be able to blow to pieces each of my assertions, like I’ve done with several assertions posted on this thread.
When ‘sane’ people fanatically and strategically refuse to acknowledge something that is so obvious, then you need a ‘mad’ man to expose them, even if it makes all the ‘sane’ men mad with anger.
However, I do appreciate, and this is the first time in all the discussions that I have held on various sites on this subject, that someone has actually asked for evidences/ scientific backing of what I have asserted. In previous cases, people have left their ground too easily, afraid to take up the issues raised by me, and either left the thread silently or with a few tantrums. I can only provide the backdrop/ evidences of my assertions when someone asks me and you thankfully have given me this opportunity.
Everything that I have asserted is based on careful observation, research and analysis. When I started my work with men ten years ago, I was heavily influenced by western ideas and concepts – myself having grown with them. But working with men on the grassroots level opened my eyes to the real truth. It all started when I saw that there were several gaps between the accepted concepts of male gender and sexuality that were given by the west (or the East) and what I saw all around me. As I explored each gap I became aware of an extremely complex mechanism of social lies and politics to manipulate men’s lives. I have been studying this mechanism minutely and it has revealed a deep social conspiracy against men --- and everything does not necessarily originate in the west, it’s only that the west has taken this conspiracy to extreme levels, and with money and technological power is forcing this extremity on others. I’m also aware that there are certain ‘vested’ interest groups that play an active role in keeping this social conspiracy alive.
My study is far from complete, I’m learning so many things each day, and there are several issues that I need more information on. Consequently, I may be wrong when dealing with such issues. But I am open and will readily change myself wherever I get new information. It’s not a prestige issue for me, rather one of finding out the real truth. Discussing things out in such forums is a wonderful way of furthering my study, and has taught me a lot. One of the things is to learn and analyse how different people respond to exposing the truth so bluntly. A truth which has been so painstakingly suppressed.
I’ve been keenly exploring history, science, current events, spirituality, politics, etc. in order to find out the truth. I do try to be scientific wherever desirable or possible in my analysis. But I also try to remember that science is not a perfect human institution --- especially social science. It has its own drawbacks, so I am not going to believe anything and everything that is dished out in the name of science. I am not hesitant to question ‘science’ when I have valid reasons for doing so.
My observations are based on logic, reasoning and often on accepted scientific positions. But they are also based on empirical evidences, and those of personal experiences. In fact one gets suspicious of what is doled out in the name of science or ‘accepted’ social positions when so much of empirical observation points otherwise. And I don’t reject feelings and emotions as useless. I give them a lot of importance in my analysis, for they are the best guides to the real human nature.
I hope to hear from you soon, I hope you will not leave ground and take this wonderful opportunity from me. Kindly let me know the assertions – point by point – for which you need explanations, reasoning or ‘proofs’ and I will gladly oblige.
Lemme guess, that's why there are so many male-male love affairs in your country? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You haven't provided any evidences or scientific backings for these statements. They are just your own personal opinions.
Throwing such one-liners is another way to blur the facts.
First, (as far as I remember) I did not talk about male-male love in my country. Even we are not so lucky! We do face immense socio-sexual pressures in our own country, and masculinity is heavily politicized and manipulated. There is hardly any scope for love affairs amongst men.
However, our roles are more ‘men-friendly’ than in a heterosexual society. For one thing we still have our male-only spaces. (And men really do understand each other, even though they have to compete with each other too).
For another, our traditional society does not promote heterosexuality unfairly. If it persecutes male-male bonds, it also persecutes male-female bonds that do not conform to social norms of marriage. So at least, it’s a more level playing field. In such situations, both male-female and male-male love flourishes behind what we call a social ‘purdah’. A ‘purdah’ is a screen behind which something is hidden. There is still a harsh stigma against open male-male sex (although non-sexual bonds are actually promoted), especially because even our traditional society has been ruled for centuries by western powers, leaving their influence.
Male-male love flourishes in the garb of close friendships. Therefore, it’s the friendships made possible by a non-heterosexual social order that makes hidden male-male sexual intimacy possible. But because of a strong social shame attached to male-male sex, these bonds still try to play down the sexual part and do not acknowledge their intimacy as love --- therefore you can’t really call them love affairs, because they are really suppressed.
What you have stated is in a way right. Because, male-female bonds are restrained, and there is no concept of heterosexuality (or homosexuality) male-male bonds do get some breathing space in the straight male community (love affairs are a far-fetched dream!). But your hidden insinuation that this ‘causes’ or forces male-male bonds upon men is definitely wrong. Because, the society after all recognizes, institutionalizes and promotes only male-female marriages, and since everyone must marry, men have enough space to give vent to their sexual feelings (or need for bonding if it’s there!) for women. And marriages happen quite early in these traditional societies. So technically, unless men have a pressing need for forming sexual bonds with other men, men will not risk their honour in entering into male-male bonds.
In fact, if straight men were really heterosexual, the above scenario was way insufficient to force them to bond with another man. You would have to have strong social punishments for not doing so, if you have to force men against their natural sexual drive.
Now that’s the kind of discussion I like.
Although, I have already won half the debate on the above issue, as you have not been able to disprove the said statement, which makes you throw the ball in my court. This shows that you yourself are not standing on a firm ground. Had I asserted e.g. that China is a country that respects human rights, the first thing you would have done is to present facts countering my statement. Because it’s an outright lie and can easily be disproved. You will not wait for me to prove that China is a country that respects human rights.
I have already given points in support of my above assertion, which you have conveniently chosen to ignore, loosing your ground further.
Anyway, I’ll give the support for my assertions again.
Assertion1: As far as nature is concerned for most men there is no sexual, physical, mental or emotional compatibility with women that can enable a long-term, intimate, sexual-love kind of bond.
1. The world over, men suffer from innumerable ‘sex problems’ which have no pathological basis. Men strive helplessly to find that eluding sexual compatibility with women. The world over, men struggle to satisfy their women – with little success. These are not just my opinions. The internet is full of online clinics offering help for such problems. I myself have been approached by endless number of men seeking counseling in their effort to fit into male sexual roles that put the burden of satisfying women on them.
2. The percentage of women who achieve orgasm in their sex encounters with men is abysmally low. Again this is not my personal opinion. This has been proven through studies.
3. It is also common knowledge that men and women have completely different orgasmic patterns. Men ejaculate much earlier than women do. And it is also common knowledge that men loose interest in sex with women (if you can ignore what they show in western movies) as soon as they achieve orgasm. Women keep complaining that after ejaculation men just want to go to sleep and women are left without achieving an orgasm. This inspite of the fact that the western society has tried to encourage men to give oral sex to women to achieve orgasm --- there does not seem to be enough takers in real life.
4. Females achieve orgasm through their clitoris, which the male penis cannot excite in a normal sexual intercourse. What chances do you think females have to achieve an orgasm through males in the wild?
5. “Men are from Venus and women are from Mars”. This is again not my personal opinion. This is something that has been validated even by your western society. Under these circumstances, how do you expect to have an emotional or mental compatibility between male and female which is so important for a life-long intimate emotional bond? It is even claimed that if an alien were to come to earth it would think men and women to be two different species (again not my opinion). It is not me who has been saying (for ages!) that men just cannot understand women (and vice versa!). How can any two people bond if they don’t have a basic understanding of each other? Inspite of the society forcing men and women into bonds and marriage, they both have to make immense sacrifices to fit into these bonds. Surely, you are aware of these things. If nature/ god indeed wanted males and females to be heterosexual and share their life together --- purely on the basis of love --- it would not have created such enormous sexual, physical, emotional and mental differences between them. How far can social maneuvers change these differences? Wiping out the social differences between them by forcefully creating a mixed gender society will not wipe out these differences but only sweep them underground.
6. And as I said in the previous post, if indeed men and women were naturally compatible to live together as couples, then the society did not need such an intensive and extensive mechanism to force such bonds on people. How do you explain these social pressures?
Of course there is a rare class of males which does naturally seek (and not under social pressures) and is comfortable in such heterosexual bonds, but we have to study and profile such individuals to see what causes this anomaly (nature or nurture!). My initial analysis shows that such males are the important link between males and females – and it has strong associations with transgenderism (which needs to be probed!).
You exist, therefore heterosexuality exists in nature.
Or , how about that most of my friends have gotten married to people of the opposute sex, therefore heterosexuality exists in nature.
Or that my dog gets excited only when around nice young male labradors, seeing as shes a bitch. I guess she's a confused lesbian, right?
Well, I don't see any difference there from a heterosexual society. Men go out to drink beers and watch football with their male pals. The same goes for women, they have female friends for friendships. But when it comes to love and sex men seek out women and vice versa.
In my opinion you seem to be unable to see the difference between friendship and love.
That men and women are different is true. But that doesn't mean that they can't be made for each other, because one could also say that opposites attract.
You say that men and women have sex problems and troubles getting orgasms when they are together, but would they do better with their own sexes? I don't think that would be the case for the majority.
You also state that men have troubles with long-term commitments and that's true. But that's not just the case when they are together with a woman, it's the same when they are romantically involved with another man.
Well, here I agree. Gyms should be boys-only and girls-only. But not due to lack of interest between the sexes... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Let me tell you, men hate mixed gender gyms more than women. But they have to outwardly pretend that they are happy at the wonderful opportunities of intimacy and romance with women that this presents. The heterosexual society actually promotes gyms as a place for heterosexual romance.
The researcher probably didn’t use boys as his subject because the heterosexual society does not give a damn if boys feel uncomfortable. In fact it will scoff at such a study and ignore it completely as it contradicts the heterosexual ideology. In any case a boy will not find it easy to accept that he actually hates mixed gender gyms.
Gyms used to be a place for male bonding and suppressed eroticism for straight men, before their forced heterosexualisation by vested interests (the vested interests were certainly not the real straight men). In fact in all traditional gym cultures, entry of women and the association of the athletes with women was strictly prohibited.
While the heterosexual/ homosexual idea of going to gym is to have a body that only LOOKS big, meaty and beautiful but is hardly strong from inside, the original concept of the gym was to gain real strength and power.
The issue here is not simply denying straight men access to male eroticism…..the issue is much deeper. Heterosexualisation isolates men from men, disempowers them (inspite of the superficial powers and the heterosexual propaganda that heterosexual men are powerful and straight!), and makes them subservient to women --- vulnerable to extreme exploitation. Sexuality was an important source of male bonding, the most important source, and stripping men of this power has isolated them, made them intrinsically weak and vulnerable --- dependant on women for their manhood, their honour, their status and respect in the society, for their sexual needs and now (in a modern heterosexual society) also their emotional needs.
Chimpanzees and Bonobos are two of the closest cousins of human beings with whom we share most of our genes. But do you know the difference between the two.
Amongst the Chimpanzees the males bond sexually with each other which makes them immensely powerful and the stronger gender of the species. The females amongst Chimpanzees fail to bond so meaningfully.
Amongst Bonobos on the other hand, for some reason, while males have frequent sex with each other, they fail to bond sexually. While sexual bonds amongst the females are pretty strong. This has made females so strong and males so weak that the females rule over the males. So much so that the status of a male in the Bonobo society is dependant upon the status of the female he is related to (as a son of course, there is no male-female sexual bond amongst bonobos). The male does not have an identity of his own.
The situation of Bonobo males is indeed pitiable. Researchers have observed that when offered food, the males of a herd cannot eat before the females have eaten. They just stand in a distance and wait for their turn. They have to make do with whatever is left for them. Disempowered and weak males are not a very pleasant site.
This is basically what a heterosexualised human society is headed towards. The typical (true) heterosexual male is a lesser-man who naturally desires to be subdued by a masculine female. He has no chance of attaining manhood or social power without ‘sex with women’ being the criteria for social manhood. Now, as the straight population is forcefully heterosexualised, the entire male population is forced towards this enslaved status.
Perhaps it is natural for the Bonobo male to be ‘feminised’ and to be subdued, but certainly not for the human male.
You can already see the signs of this insubordination. The heterosexual society is extra sensitive towards the needs and rights of women, but is openly hostile to the needs and sensibilities of men. Men have already lost a lot of outer power that was given to them in exchange for their freedom (and the power to bond with men) to bind them into marriage with women. They have very little rights left in marriages, on properties and on their children. But the ‘invisible power’ of women --- as source of man’s manhood, honour and status in the society is made open and several folds more potent, making men extremely vulnerable and without protection.
The heterosexual idea of liberating women from their oppression and giving them rights is to make them ‘equal’ to men. In the guise of this ‘equality’ the vested interests force the genders to merge, of course unopposed, since the straight men are already socially disempowered to resist this.
The very heterosexual idea of ‘equality’ between men and women is flawed and unnatural. Why should women compete or be equal to men at all. They have their own capabilities, needs and aspirations that men don’t have. Instead of trying to be equal to men, why can’t women excel in their own natural potentials? Can apple and mangoes be equal?
Heterosexuality takes this absurd idea of ‘equality’ to its extremity. Now equality has come to mean ‘sameness’. So the heterosexual society wants to remove all the natural gender differences between men and women by removing all social differences. So, in the name of this ‘sameness’, women can now easily invade men’s most private areas like their changing rooms, or force them to strip for conducting physicals, sexually abuse men as in hazing or in prisons --- all this made possible by the undeservedly empowered heterosexual male and the disempowerment of the straight male through his heterosexualisation.
While women want to work hand-in-hand with men and be wherever men are --- and given all ‘equal’ treatments, they still need special treatment, of course because there are certain things they can’t do (or can’t do as well!). If implanted in a male group, they have to be taken care of by the males.
And in any case, they’ll need their separate bathrooms. Sexual hazing will not victimize women --- while they are involved as perpetrators.
Not to mention that women are allowed to keep their female-only spaces, while all male-only spaces are forcefully converted into mixed gender, heterosexual spaces where men must chase women as the singular aim of their life.
The most important part is that while the heterosexual society disempowers men by killing their power to bond sexually with each other, it actually promotes sex or sexual bonding between women as erotic and natural. Straight women already have achieved some freedom to talk about and own up their sexual need for women without having to take on the ‘Lesbian’ label. In any case the Lesbian label is not so stigmatized and straight women do share deep emotional bonds.
And while women unite together all over the globe to press for their rights and to end their exploitation, men suffer in silence and isolation. There are extremely few cases where a man who is oppressed and exploited by the heterosexual society and driven to the brink, decides to fight back to change things (these are the real men!). But they have to work all alone, with no support at all from the male community (men are severely enslaved by the heterosexual society, their power to unite and relate with each other severely crippled and besides, they are too intoxicated by the superficial but extreme social power) ….. and the heterosexual society paying no heed to these lonely warriors at all. No one will give you financial, moral or emotional support for fighting for men’s rights. They might probably laugh at you. There are a few such men working on masculinity in the west.
If the heterosexualisation of the society continues unchallenged, one day human civilization will become like that of the Bonobos.
Yet, with time both men and women will become used to such heterosexual settings and think of them as the only way and the natural way to be. Just like what happened in the case of the horses.
I will agree with you after considering the evidence and my own experience that there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature, but only evidence for sexuality. If you are talking about procreation, then for nearly all species found in nature, one male and one female are required even if no intercourse occurs. Is this evidence that nature intended heterosexual relationships? I suppose not.
So, the issue comes down to morality. If heterosexuality is not natural, homosexuality is not either. You are right that the culture determines sexual preference in society. Religion and/or morality aside, neither homosexuality or heterosexuality should be encouraged in a society, if it wishes to be a naturalistic society. Social pressure does determine sexual preference, but I couldn't care less. The society I live in happens to encourage heterosexuality, and I love it! So, should we seperate people into homosexual, heterosexual, and natural societies for the good of the world? That seems to be the most moral decision, but my belief in Jesus Christ says otherwise. What do you think?
Well, I agree with you that men and women have become too alike. In my opinion men should be masculine and women feminine. But your cure to this; that men should start to have sex with each other, I simply can not understand. When two men have sex one of them takes on the role of a woman, how can this behaviour then improve the masculinity in men? In the old Greek citystates homosexual sex was when a grown man had sex with a young boy (teenager) who then took on the part as the woman. When the boy became an adult the relationship ended.
Separate names with a comma.