Discussion in 'Human Science' started by ArtofWar, Dec 20, 2005.
I don't think you should either.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You were probably right the first time.
My original statement was directed at people who are self-righteous about their heterosexual status. They exist in abundance. I simply stated that it was not the highest form of sexuality contrary to what many people are thinking. I said it for the very fact that so many people use it's label of "natural" to prove themselves superior in some way. It simply is not so.
And stating that economic and social conditions dictate the population levels indicates that as society evolves from third world to first world, it evolves AWAY from NATURAL heterosexuality and reproduction. If heterosexuality was truly the highest form of sexuality, I'm guessing people would be evolving towards more procreation, not away from it. I don't see how that disproves my original statement.
That statement may be nothing more than my opinion. I'm fine with that. But even at the very worst, it is not completely wrong, and at the very best, completely right. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, I'm guessing! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the reason i asked is because i feel that wars in the past was to conquer countries to gain land and resources
the wars of the future will be to contain out population
and i still don't get what you mean by procreation being unnatural
in essence what you are saying is humans should not be here at all right?
Too late. Way too late.
And who in this thread expressed that view? What an antrhopocentric view you take of biology.
So you agree that we have a problem at hand.
Nature intended limited procreation in human beings (as is the case with the other beings). Nature must keep its balance --- and for that it is important that procreation does not exceed a limit (and not drop down too low either). That's why it has made inbuilt mechanisms to limit procreation (not the basic purpose of same-sex bonds).
It is for this reason that males in nature don't approach females more than a couple of times in their life. And their interaction is devoid of any romance or emotional bonds. They just have quick sex and leave each other. And it is also the reason that many males don't approach females at all, including many alpha males. The number of males who bond with females in nature is limited.
The human society has changed that primarily through the marriage institution. The objective to increase the population much more than nature had allowed. The reason: they were settling in far off continents and they needed a continuous supply of people. Remember, so-called science was not so so-called developed then.
Male-male sexual bonds started to be repressed primarily to force men into marriage. Obvously they were a big hurdle in making the marriage institution successful (read the sub-thread: 95% of men have a sexual need for men).
Therefore I am calling this artificial increase in human population through the artificial marriage institution, which was initiated to multiply, 'foregoing' the rules of nature, and whose effects we can well see in overpopulation (when it is merged with development in medical science) --- therefore I'm calling it 'unnatural'. It has disrupted the precarious balance of nature. At one point of time perhaps it had benefited humans, but now it may prove to be their undoing.
yes the patriarchy .....it has persecuted women--still do--for the freedom to abort unwanted foetus's---------------demonized orgasms, especially women----------and enforces procreation so as to keep a steady supply of workers and soldiers for its coffers and warring machine
Tell that to the dolphins.
1. there is no balance in nature.
2. Procreation is not limited in humans originally. Survival was limited. If anyhting procreation is limited NOW in western societies.
3. The factors that limit procreation are therefore entirely cultural (social welfare) and technological (birth control).
Doesn't make any sense at all to me.
Marriage as an institution is for societal stability. The things you are complaining about are what separate us from the animals. Maybe animals behave as you say. Maybe humans did behave that way at one time.
Now they behave differently so that we can have a society and civilization instead of swinging from trees. Not whatever odd sexual reasons you are trying to bring into it.
okay i see where you are comeing from
but i disagree
procreation is not unnatural, only undesirable (my opinion)
the limited wars that we have will deal with our numbers.
as a matter of fact i feel the farther we go into the future the more technical the situation will become. and we will deal with it.
have you ever experienced war?
and who is the 'we' who will 'deal with it'?
no i have not fought in a war if that is what you mean
the "we" are the people of this planet, all of us.
Hey dipshit, "animals" almost exclusive to predators/carnivores, exude this apparent discontent for their counterparts for the sake and flourishing of their offspring. Fact is, Males do not share this unique or even inherent bond with their spawn as might the mother, but obviously due to natures complexities and 'abnormalities' every instance cannot be lumped as proof provided for a completely differing matter, such as your quandary with Homosexuality
Once again buddha1 confuses scientific observation (reality) with the logical anomaly (abnormality,) and somehow strives to prove wrong man’s inclination! How can one accomplish that lol? If men are inclined to seek Vagina, whether the stats say 99.5% or 51.9% there is no factual evidence to state the majority of man's need otherwise!
Buddha1 has spent countless years of futile research in attempting to bring solace to his broken resolve. No one but Buddha1 believes in false substance exists in this thread. The sad part is that it is all of the Oratory comes from him!
Buddha1 the Greeks believed that Homoerotism (among males exclusively) was a source of greater divinity. They believed that the love of man to another was the highest form of love, and very likely thought the same for the state of Moral consequence. I say to you with such an “open mind” as you believe this as being. Why then did the Greeks still believe Homosexuality as a form of irregularity?? The bottom line here is that whether you believe same sex practice or affection as being absolute or archaic the essential idea is that of oddity.
Now you Buddha can get into semantics till your dying breath, but you will fail in disproving the vital essence of heterosexuality and its function in Coitus. So I ask you to stop the questions and begin with an accurate response!
Too late for what?
I in this thread expressed that view.
And isn't it glorious?
Too late to request that I not procreate.
So, you are condeming the very view you expressed yourself. Very indulgent. Redolent of insanity, mayhaps.
You seem committed to being an even larger turkey in 2006 than in 2005.
Perhaps you should be. . . . . . . committed.
Oh, please. Let me turn back the clock. I'm itching.
May I suggest that we now get back to the topic at hand, instead of a personal twosome tirade.
"Thought of the day"
The society has grouped male-male sexual behaviour into a separate 'homosexual' group not because of the demands of biology or of nature, but because of the demands of the heterosexual society.
It is done to heterosexualise the society. It is a result of the heterosexualisation of hte society.
Separate names with a comma.