Heterosexuality is unnatural, abnormal and a disease This is not rhetoric. Whether we look at our present day society, or the ancient world --- this is the resounding message that we get. Scientifically, biologically and morally. Man, at least straight man was never ever meant to be heterosexual. Defining Heterosexuality Let's clearly define heterosexuality first. The western society conveniently plays with these words to suit their own anti-men's agenda. In common parlance it is often used to simply refer to sex or sexual desire between male and female. Heterosexuality, however, is not as simple as that, nor is sexual desire for women the ownership of heterosexuals. Heterosexuality in reality is an ideology, which embodies two things: - exaggeration of sexual desire for women to a point that nature can't healthily sustain. - Suppression of sexual desire for men, which is equally unhealthy. Heterosexuality means exclusive and all encompassing sexual desire for women, and an inversion to male eroticism and bonding. Defining Homosexuality It is also important to define homosexuality clearly, since it is cunningly meant to cover two opposite ends of male spectrum --- the masculine and the feminine, which is practically not possible, but the western world has lived with this concoction for a long time. Sex or sexual desire between males is also not the ownership of homosexuals. Homosexuality for all practical purposes refers to sexual attraction of a feminine/queer male (often referred to as gay) either for another feminine man or for a straight man (they are both different desires). Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality covers the sexual relationship or desire of a straight man for another straight man (or even for a feminine man). Furthermore, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality even remotely represents the sexual nature of straight men. Sexual nature of straight men Straight men, by nature, are driven to seek sex with women occasionally (about once each year like in the animals). They are meant to seek life-long committed relationship only with other men (mostly straight men). This is supported both by history and the animal life. Most of the men including straight men who go around with the 'heterosexual' label are not really heterosexuals. They are just pretending. The straight man's desire for another straight man is way different than a woman's desire for a straight man or a 'homosexual's' (feminine male) desire for a straight man. A straight man's desire for women is also very different from a feminine man's desire for women. Animal sexuality In none of the mammal species we know of is the male 'heterosexual'. Which other mammal do you know where the male pairs off with a female for lifelong or even for a period greater than a week! Heterosexual mating takes place once a year, during the mating season and that too for a very short duration ranging from a few hours to a couple of days (depending on the species) after which the male goes back to his pack. Of course the discovery channel will not tell you what the males do the rest of the year, although recent discoveries have shown a lot of sexual committed bonding between males. So the guys that bang each other's heads for a fuck of the female go back to their male lovers after attending to their natural call --- fulfilling their duty, so to speak. If mammals were indeed heterosexuals they would not live separately for such long periods when they can easily live together. They don't even have to live in male only or female only groups. They can also choose to live in heterosexual spaces like the modern, Christian West does (perhaps the sons of gods of the world couldn't reach them). Animals live according to their natural instincts, not on the basis of some lords or prophets commands. The animal males choose a new female partner each year, whereas, in the few cases studied they tended to bond lifelong with other males (in one-to-one bonds), unless forced apart by death. Clearly the males do not have any sense of commitment or attachment with the females – a basic requirement of heterosexuality. What's more in species like the elephants, the males only approach females when they are about 40 years old. That in a life span which is only about 60 years by which time the elephant is too old even to move around properly. Sex between males is only too well known amongst the elephants. We must not forget that most cases of affection and sexual bonding between males in the wild are not reported by the scientists – a phenomenon which has only now started to be documented. Even if they wanted to, they are too biased and ill informed to really find it out. The strongest bias is this stupid 'scientific' theory that they have that every single move and thought of the animal is (consciously or unconsciously) directed towards facilitating reproduction, especially if it's even remotely concerned with sexual bonding. So if there is sex between males, it has to fit into this 'overall' purpose. Of course they will only look for cases of sex, love between males neither exists in the animal world nor is it important. Another bias is that scientists tend to consider only cases of anal intercourse in animals as 'homosexuality'. That's absolutely illogical (in fact trying to find 'homosexuality amongst animals is itself wrong and biased because it's a peculiarly human /western/Christian concept). Even amongst the humans straight men do not prefer intercourse when they have sex with another straight man. When men have sex with women or with 'homosexuals' they may only have intercourse because it's socially so constructed. Human history Almost all ancient tribal societies, only a couple of which now remain, had institutionalized sexual bonding between men and often gave it precedence over sex with women. In these societies, like in the animal world, sex between males and females happened periodically every year and was restricted to just sex – but only so much that procreation can occur. In fact in all the ancient traditions (there are still several that survive today in non-western societies) womanizing is considered a feminizing factor for men. We don't need to recount what happened in Greece. Suffice it to say that whenever the society accorded male-male bonds its true place, they have marginalized male-female bonds, and societies have been forced to find means to compel men to copulate with women. It seems to be a perenial problem. In medieval societies by which time, male-female marriages were already made compulsory (we are still far away from heterosexuality) and sex between men either flourished (in some societies) side by side under social acceptance if not institutionalization or (in other societies) it was accepted behind the scenes, not openly. But in either case, interaction between man and woman was restricted to just the act of sexual intercourse (which, I might add, in most societies did not involve taking off clothes, nor doing it with lights on) often once in every couple of months). Or to matters concering family (children, ration, etc.). In these societies the issue was 'procreation' and not satisfying women. Also in both kinds of societies sex (not love) between a feminine male (homosexual) and a straight man was openly allowed. This has been the case in most of the non-western world till recent times, before the advent of globalisation and cultural invasion by America which has begun a process of heterosexualisation of these societies. Marriage is unnatural A true man can never share his life with a woman (or even with a feminine male) without sacrificing his happiness. Even a relationship with them is heavy on him. This is something that only a person with enough femininity can afford. In fact the more masculine a man gets the lesser his attraction for women gets too. The love and bonding that a straight man can give to another straight man, neither a woman nor a homosexual male can give to him. A feminine male (homosexual or heterosexual) is equally unlikely to understand a straight man than are women, and is not likely to be compatible with him. They both have the least understanding or appreciation of masculinity. All that they have is a sexual attraction which is transient. Women and Feminine males may like macho men for short term flings, but they soon get bored of it and then they want to change them. Straight men too can at best have short flings with women and feminine males. Interestingly, the same thing happens at the other end of the spectrum --- the more feminine a man gets the lesser his interest in women gets too. You become that, which you love Of course there are some men who are genuinely heterosexual in this world, i.e., genuinely want to share their life with a woman. But these are not the typical males. These true heterosexuals are harmless and enlightened creatures and are most likely the two-spirited people that the ancients once venerated. I.e. they have both the male and female spirits (masculinity and femininity) in them almost in equal proportion. This way you can say that they have 'hormonal balance'. They fall somewhere between the masculine males (straights) and feminine males (including non-homosexuals). These two-spirited people may not be too different from today's meterosexuals. Women who really want to share life with a man really crave for this meterosexual man, not one of those macho or straight guys. The height of heterosexuality is the ultimate two-spirited person – who is also considered to be the epitome of spirituality --- what the heterosexual society has ironically denigrated as 'transsexual' and 'hermaphrodite'. He is a person who is two-spirited from within as well as from the outside – he has male genitals but he feels he is a female – his love for women has turned him into a male-woman. Or he has the genitalia of both male and female as in the case of the hermaphrodite. Incidentally, the height of femininity in males is also Transexuality (although it's not two spirited, only feminine spirited but signifying a unique form of positive energy nevertheless). The height of the masculine spirited (straight) man is macho -- a stage which traditionally insists on total abstinence from women. However, the term macho has been much maligned and distorted by the heterosexual society. The heterosexual version of 'macho' is selfish, cruel, mean, unfair and of course 'heterosexual'. The naturally macho man on the other hand was strong from inside, fair, respectful of others, caring, righteous and a true warrior. He was someone who is a true stickler for fair rules. And it does not need to be said that he took love with a man to its highest form, with total and exclusive devotion – like the ancient Greeks. The world has not seen such love eversince. I'm reminded of an ancient myth, where god Zeus in anger divided his subjects– the male, female as well as the hermaphrodite gods -- into halves. He later relented and sent them to earth as humans, each one's goal in life being to reunite and bond with his/ her other half, in order to become complete again. Thus the males started craving for a man (his other half), the female craved for another female and the hermaphrodite person who was divided into a man and a woman has since been looking for and courting 'heterosexual' bonds. We are all supposed to represent one of these. God does not want man and woman to bond If god wanted man and woman to live together he wouldn't put one on Venus and the other on mars. There is absolutely no understanding between them. There is hardly any sexual compatibility between men and women. Ever since heterosexuality came into being so have innumerable big and small sexual dysfunctions --- problems that have arisen because of forcing men into heterosexuality --- into a sexual bond with women that nature cannot support. There'll hardly be a 'heterosexual' man today who does not face sexual problems even though he may be shy of seeking treatment. Man and woman cannot satisfy each other in bed fully. They both have absolutely different sexual clocks and different patterns of orgasms and absolutely no natural understanding of how the other's body works. Straight men are wary of being intimate with women beyond ejaculation. They do not like to cuddle women in bed. Of course women often complain that men turn the other way as soon as they shed their semen. The orgasm of the female or her sensuality or her femininity in itself does not interest men. It would if it was not forced on them beyond the natural limit. And of course there is the adage that 'men want sex from women' while 'women want love'. Real men just can't dream of emotional intimacy with women --- it's a fact, and I'm sure, most women will not feel sorry because of it. They too (apart from a small minority – the equivalent of male two spirit heterosexuals), secretly, be better off living with their own with occasional sexual escapades with the opposite sex. Surely, if nature had intended heterosexuality it would not be so dumb as to make it so painstakingly difficult. Forcing Heterosexuality If heterosexuality was indeed so natural, such extreme social maneuvering would not have been needed to keep it in place. I mean look at the way the entire society, each and every element of it is meant to promote 'heterosexuality' howsoever uncomfortable or unnatural these elements may seem. So much so that today even small children are taught about dating and made to understand in no uncertain terms that if they want to grow up 'straight' (which they better do!) they must be heterosexual. And to think that these messages go through the most innocent of channels – cartoons. And if 'heterosexuality' was indeed natural it did not need to fear 'homosexuality' so much. There would have been no need for such an immense force to control it as is being used today. Of course in the first place there would have been no need to bring in god to restrain it. If male-male sexuality is talked about it is only of the homosexual variety (stereotyped as feminine guys looking for a fuck) so as to keep straight men restrained. And children must be absolutely kept out of it, because the only hope to keep the society heterosexual is to fill their minds with filth about sexual relationships between any kind of males. Because if they fail to do it in that tender age, they have no hope whatsoever. Heterosexuality is an anti-male ideology Heterosexuality makes men subservient to women. A heterosexual society judges a man's manhood by his ability to 'satisfy' women. This gives women an immense power and handle over men. While all women are aware of this power that they have over men (and not all are interested in using them) some sexually aggressive women (polite term for whores) use this power to sexually abuse and exploit men. Because, man will have to submit to a woman's demand for sex lest he be disqualified from being a man. Thus 'heterosexuality' has made men vulnerable to unimaginable sexual abuse. Heterosexuality has created a society where the 'woman' has been granted the power to grant manhood to a man, and it no longer flows from within a man and from being with men. However, this is good news for the weak two-spirited 'heterosexual' (not all heterosexuals need this cheap power). These men not only gladly submit themselves before women, they want to make the entire male species subservient to them. These men can hardly feel for the male race or masculinity because all they can think about is women and femininity and how to serve them. Subsequently, a heterosexual society is over sensitive to the issues of women, but is impervious, often hostile to the needs of men. These weak heterosexuals are the real eunuchs (non-men). They are the betrayer of the male population. They speak for women. They should not call themselves 'men'. They sell out the male race to the women and happily become their slaves. Conclusion: Thus it can be forcefully said that heterosexuality in the form that is enforced in westernized societies – as masculine and majoritarian, is unnatural, abnormal and gives rise to a number of physical, emotional, mental, social and spiritual problems both in men, women and the two-spirited people. At the same time, the whole concept of homosexuality is also unnatural and abnormal in its present form. In fact the very validity of the concept of sexual orientation is questionable, but that is quite another matter. No where in the mammalian world does the male partake in the raising of children. The birds do, and probably that is +why they're heterosexual. But not humans. Children are nice to raise, and men awe women for the power of procreation that they have, but heterosexuality is too heavy a price to pay for it. After all, women cannot make children without men. Coming up…… Heterosexuality is a disease!
what 's it mean when we say something is un-natural? i break down the term so...un-naTURE-al. against Nature. what about decay then? that SEEMs against Nature if you believe Nature's only about life. but it isn't, death is very much included in the dynamic pattern and/or mystery.....but what if i came to your town and emptied a lethal toxic ingedient to your water system that made all who drank from is die a really awful toxic death, so that even your BODIEs couldn't naturally rot and had to be carefully incinerated because the smoke and remeains still were toxic. is THAt natural. i would say no cause it isn't workin WITh Nature.......it is some calculatedly malicious act whose intent it is to destry fo NO reason but for some grievance an animal wouldn't do that would it? i am asking So what about sexuality? as explained by Bddhia1's article, and other sources, which include dolphins etc, animals DO have same sex relations. so that is natrual right? and we are animal and we do it. so that's natrual right? wrong? what i am saying is is that you preople who harp on about Queers being Unnatural have a bleedin BLINDspot for viscious thugs in power who willy nilly R the closest meat to what i would term unnatrual, in that they have no concern whatsoever for Nature, including other species, or human life, or the quality of life for ALL
I don't know what's that supposed to mean. You think so! Well at least I'm reasoning things out. Prove me wrong! That is more important. No it is not. I am speaking neither from my personal experiences alone nor from a 'group' of people who are supposed to share a 'differernt' point of view. I'm speaking from the strength of living in a traditional non-western society as a masculine straight man, and more importantly of working, for the past ten years, with men (mostly masculine (straight) men) on the issues of gender and sexual health. I've seen men all around me struggling to fit into the western heterosexual identities in a fast changing world. I've seen the strongest, most macho men struggling with their sexual feelings for other men when inadvertently caught in a bond --- inspite of all the pretences otherwise. I do not know of a single man who can take sex with woman in a natural, matter of fact way. No it's always such a big pressure on men. They must prove themselves. I've seen young men chasing girls with such urgency as if someone is forcing them to do it – it all seems so unnatural. That set me out to find out reasons for what afflicts man. What I'm saying is based on what I've found. Oh no you don't! That's a time tested western strategy to isolate men who speak up for their right to bond with another man. This labeling thing may work wonders with your fellow countrymen. But not with me. I'm out of your 'sexual orientiation' system. I'm clear about my identity, given to me by my society --- a masculine straight man. I'm clear about what place men and women have in my life as far as sex and love are concerned, but those are my personal things nothing to do with my identity. There is no such thing like a 'homosexual' in nature. Neither in the society that I live in. Unless you are talking about those feminine guys. But they have more in common with heterosexual men (if at all there is such a thing!) than with me or other straight men. The concept of 'sexual orientation' is a clever western creation to keep straight men heterosexual. The question does not arise ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And now a word of advice: If you are quite through examining my motives for writing this article, you may try to understand what it is saying. I know its difficult for you because it strikes at your power base, and because you have 'strange' religious values, But when its time for truth to come out, it has to come out. You cannot forever rule with lies. You cannot steal our identities and appear masculine with it. Not forever! Both heterosexual and homosexual people in the west will have trouble understanding what I'm saying because you live in an entirely different unnatural set up, but straight men will automatically relate with what I'm saying. See I've done my homework well, and I know what I'm talking about.
'Heterosexuality' the disease Heterosexuality is a disease which has serious repercussions – for men the most, but also for women and the third gender (including the heterosexuals). Heterosexuality gives rise to a number of physical, emotional, mental, social, sexual and spiritual problems in people, especially straight men. The progression of the disease Heterosexuality is the most advanced form of a disease the roots of which go back long long ago in the history. At that time it was so harmful. The reason earlier societies first started institutionalsing male-female sex as 'marriage' was to ensure the continuance or the political dominance of their communities through a steady increase in population. The world then was a big place and could sustain many more humans than were there at that time. As communities migrated from one place to another (e.g. the Indo-Aryans) this need to increase in numbers fast would have resulted, for the first time, in attempts to control sex between men – to further limit male energy to reproduction. Then came Christianity and Islam – the two later religions that openly sought religious hegemony and dominance of the world. They promptly secured an order from their respective gods in order to make sex between men a sin and a crime. These were the middle stages of the disease. The western society developed this disease to its present form "Heterosexuality', to suit the modern, 'scientific' times. The epidemiology of Heterosexuality Heterosexuality, in its full blown form was till recently only present in the western world, with the U.S. experiencing its most advanced stage. The disease was however present in its crude forms in most of the civilized world for about the past 2500 years (in some cases even earlier). With globalisation, the US through its wealth and technological power has been bombarding the rest of the world with the full blown 'heterosexual' virus. Some of the symptoms of Heterosexuality The symptoms of the advanced stage of the disease include the 'killing' of all male only spaces/ customs in the society which are replaced with mixed-sex spaces/ customs. Another symptom is the incessant 'promotion', enforcement and glorification of male-female sex. Which is accompanied by silencing the voices of male-male love or its denigration. A special symptom of a man coming from a society inflicted with heterosexuality is a strange set of reactions which include turning pink with embarrassment and cringing, at even the thought of holding another man\s hand or being too near him, especially if in public. Some of the effects of heterosexuality Heterosexuality makes human life miserable. It also adversely affects other species and the mother earth. Overpopulation is one of the severest effects of the disease. The world is already ready to burst with humans spreading like insects. Of course nature gave just enough attraction towards female to the masculine male that can support the nature's pace of reproduction. Had heterosexuality been natural there would not be any use for condoms or for vasectomy or for those hazardous pills with severe side effects --- all unnatural things. Surely these are the by-products of an unnatural heterosexual society. Like innumerable others. It's ironical. Heterosexuality was created in order to force the human population to grow much faster than their natural pace. Today, when population itself has become a fatal problem, threatening to kill not only the human population, but the earth itself, efforts are being made to rid heterosexuality of 'procreation'. Considering the individual and social costs of maintaining an unnatural 'heterosexual' order, one wonders of its use, when it has become inimical to the basic purpose of its creation. Heterosexuality indeed has become an end in itself. When straight men are forced to be heterosexuals, they are forced to relinquish their masculinity and since femininity is not an option (because it is so devalued and because it does not come naturally to straight men) they become hollow and diseased from within, dependant on pretentious masculinity – the heterosexual brand of fake masculinity described in the earlier article. Violence against women is also a negative fall out of forcing (explicitly or implicitly) men into heterosexual relationships. And of course there are those innumerable sexual diseases that inflict men reeling under heterosexuality ----- from pre-mature ejaculation to erectile dysfunctions. Satisfying women is a goal that keeps eluding men. Perhaps they should learn from those meterosexuals, sorry heterosexuals.
You seem to be caught in the web of sexual orientations (or mores or give it whatever name you like!). I seems to be a defense mechanism and a recourse to you. I'll discuss this later. Before that I wanted to ask you two questions. 1) Do you have clues about what makes men heterosexual?
Men are not heterosexual. Men desire women only because they desire men. We desire women because women can create new men. How can men love women? Women are not like men. HOly Apollo and HOly HOMOsex.
I knew you would try to avoid the question. You have not answered that very important question. You seem to know what causes so-called homosexuality, even when you say its not a disease, but you don't you know what causes heterosexuality when you yourself claim to be one. You want to engage me in a blame game and a question of who sleeps with whom, in order to avoid answering the question. I won't take the bait. It is clear that I feel the desire to bond in an eternal bond with another man (who doesn't --- but don't start a discussion on that yet! you will have plenty of time). Whether I've slept with someone is entirely a personal thing. I'll soon come to the points you have raised. Now I challenge you to state the cause of 'heterosexuality', not get engaged in another discussion, or beat around the bush.
These are not exceptions. These are the common perceptions about straight men across societies --- even in the heterosexual west. Men are largely seen as people trying to run away from relationships, even when they are stereotyped as having enormous sexual drives for women..Men often try to delay getting married. They are seen as people exact opposites of women (esp. in the west). Anyone who has any understanding of masculinity knows that inspite of their sexual attraction, their different sex and gender, straight men bond with women or be intimate with them without compromising on their masculinity. Of course then these qualities are becoming less and less visible as the pressures of heterosexualisation intensifies in the west and men are increasingly trained to suppress their masculinity to make them compatible with women. Anyway, could it be that you are trivilising my contention because you are someone who fits in well with women (whether through training or naturally). It's all subjective. That is why you can't see the contradictions of others in a system that expects straight men to be heterosexual. Yes, no? I am willing to admit that some straight men may have lesser compatability issus with women, but it still does not amount to heterosexuality. Why do you need to have a 'heterosexual' identity in order to love or bond with a woman? Training, encouraging, expecting and forcing the majority of straight men, especially young men (who are the most unlikely to be compatible with women) to adopt 'heterosexual' identities or life-styles, still tantamounts to a diseased, unnatural and amoral system. Oh Please! There is over-preparing of young men to become heterosexuals. How much more heterosexualisation do you want. Your society has already reached the limit. It starts preparing its young ones from the very childhood. Indeed, the result is demasculated, desensitized youth who haven't had a chance to learn a thing about masculinity and cannot relate with or bond with other men. All they are good for is to date women. If heterosexuality is indeed natural, you don't need to teach it to people. The hormones do what they are supposed to do.very well. The problem is you expect strange things from the hormones – and don't let it do its work. You mean straight,and heterosexual and married. Straight and married match. Heterosexual does not. You realize you could as well be queer (transgender), heterosexual and married. That is more common. Estimates say, most transgendered and transexual people are 'heterosexual' (Though they too are more likely to be so-called bisexual like all of us!). I have not said marriage is a disease in itself. Though not an ideal condition for a man to be happy. As for heterosexuality, isn't it a disease: - How else do you explain (what you guys call) homophobia --- I'd call it heterosexism --- in a species which is basically bisexual (not as an identity…..mind you!) - How do you explain the deluge of population which is ruining mother earth. - How do you explain the breaking of men from each other, into artificial and unnatural sexual identities. - How do you explain the terrible pain and suffering of people you've categorised as homosexuals. - How do you explain the pain and suffering of straight men who choose not to leave their gender identity and have to make several sacrifices that turn them into robots more than human beings and take them away from their natural masculinity. - How do you explain the terrible pain and suffering of transgendered and transsexual people who inspite of being the most deserving of a heterosexual status are excluded from your privileged club so that you can showcase 'heterosexuality' as masculine. Not to mention that as population increases beyond what the nature has intended, the biological quality of human beings and the quality of life goes down. Attempts to control population through unnatural means further mean that we destroy our fragile environment with enormous loads of non-biodegradable latex condoms. Surely, a natural thing will not be so disastrous for the nature. Who should we blame if not heterosexuality? Again, you were too eager to dismiss my article to pay attention to what I'm saying. You don't want to look beyond what your society has taught you about sexual identities and their definitions. And why not they bring you cheap power. I repeat when I say heterosexuality is a disease I do not mean male-female sex. Not even male-female bonding if it is not promoted as the most preferred option of men. And male bonds are institutionalized with all their masculine glory,and importance,--- not for some deviant homosexual community, but for the male race as a whole.
so it is natural to eats ones shit? or it is natural to have sex with ones family member? or it is natural to eat a penis with the person whoes it is and then kill them and eat them? All of the above have been done, so there are natural???
I rest my case. Since, it is not natural to eat one's shit, or to have sex with one's family members, or to eat a penis with the person whoes it is and then kill them and eat them, why should it be natural to be heterosexual? .....Just because they have been done or are being done.
Let me rephrase that .......since it is not natural to eat one's shit......., why should we be heterosexual.
I recently joined a sculptor class. It turned out to be a clay modeling thing (I'd hoped for stone and chisels). I was surprised to see there were only females in the class (about 25). I was assigned to a male class, which had only 2 students. They were both kind of feminine; one `had a girlfriend, the other married. I don't know if they are heterosexuals (those 2-5% types). The girls were all making female sculptures. And so were the two guys. There were only a couple of male statues and they were not properly done. Feminine males, women and heterosexuals do have something in common. The masculine and beautiful male statues of the Greeks were definitely done by straight men.
The dictionary meaning of "rhetoric" is "a statement intended to influence people, but not completely sincere". Now I may be wrong….but you have to prove my statements wrong, logically, giving reasons --- or you can ask me for 'proofs'/ evidences for my assertions, where I have not given any ---- or ask me to elaborate. But I'm certainly not insincere. I have theorized in complete sincerity and honesty what I've observed through years of work --- not giving my personal opinion or speaking on the strengths of an oppressive and manipulative social system ---- something that cannot be said of you. Is this the way you logically discuss the validity or otherwise of a statement --- however wrong it is? Try to convert it into a sort of 'blame game' in order to avoid the real issue. My definition is clear-cut and very to the point. The point is not whose definition it is. But whether it applies or not. If it is wrong, why can't you or someone else easily prove it wrong using a scientific method of analysis? Now this is really duh, and you're beginning to piss me off. In my culture these things are considered private. I've already told you more than you have the right to know. This discussion is not about me or my personal life. Certainly not about who or when or with how many people I go to bed with, whether I'm monogamous or not……It's about people, organized lies and oppressive systems. Whether I'm a celibate man or have sex thrice a day will not change the facts. Judge my assertions for their own validity. PROVE ME WRONG. But you don't listen do you! Is that all you can say to counter my assertions.
The problem is you are unable to prove my assertions wrong. The world can't be run according to your opinions or mine. We need to justify what we are saying. I'll show you how you can prove assertions wrong point by point: a) Homosexuality has never existed before 1880 (pardon me if I have the year wrong), when it was first coined as a clinical term for a disease. Exposes behavioral science as a 'heterosexual' institution. b) From the Greeks times( which celebrated love between straight men), compulsive receptive anal intercourse as practiced by some third gender males has consistently been looked down upon as unmanly, and later as abnormal and in the past some centuries, a disease. c) For this reason, straight men stopped practicing receptive anal sex openly. However penetrative sodomy was never looked down upon, other forms of non-penetrative sexual contacts happened routinely between straight men and were considered inconsequential – not even visible. But men were widely believed to be just sexual and a penetrator status was actually considered a manly thing. An attitude which still exists even in the heterosexual west. Obviously, since there was no concept of sexual orientation. Have you ever thought, that if sexual orientation is such a natural and obvious concept and if indeed only a few men (with anomaly) have sexual feelings for men, why didn't any non-western society --- not even one, come up with a name for it or acknowledged the concept in any form. In my society, inspite of 10 years of hard selling and gay activism by some westernised gays, there are no takers for the 'gay' identity apart from the 'westernised' third gender males, who havejumped upon the identity. Men here have less inhibited sex with other men but don't consider themselves 'homosexual'. Of course they don't consider themselves heterosexual or bisexual either. Yes, and it was started and continued by the third gender (transgendered). For a long time straight men kept out of it. (Most still do) till the society became overbearingly heterosexual, isolating men on the basis of their lack of obvious desire to court women. You are right about the religion thing. But that does not give credence to the sexual orientation theory. Just because it has been accepted in the west doesn’t mean it's true. And no one can see it better than an outsider who has done a comparative study of both cultures. Almost all the institutions of the heterosexual society promote, propagate and enforce heterosexuality, including homosexuals and feminists. Even the manipulative western science acknowledges that upto 10% of any population is homosexual (sic). What they don’t' tell you is that about 10% of any population is heterosexual (sic). But anyone who has worked on sexuality will not dispute that. Indeed, even psychologists (part of your heterosexual set-up) have had to admit that man is basically bisexual --- starting from Freud to Alfred Kinsey. The heterosexual society coolly keeps sidelining such theories, while highlighting any theory that seeks to portray sexual desire for men as 'deviant', 'rare' and 'queer',all of them basing their study on third gender. Psychologists even have to sheepishly admit that all adolescents go through a homosexual (sic) phase. That was the least they could do to trivialize it --- to call it a phase. If you have five teeny-weeny, feminine guys attacking you at the gate, will you bring the heavy artillery and involve every single infantry and every single weapon that you have to defend your country. The magnitude of your offensive is a clear indication that your real enemy is neither small in number like your 2%-5% (or even 10%) suggests nor is it queer as your identities suggest. The enemy is larger than you, and extremely strong --- like in macho --- which is a straight quality. If indeed sexual desire for men is limited to the 2-5% homosexuals and a couple of percentage of bisexuals, why does your society worry whether they get married or if they are accepted by the society or included in the army. After all such a small population is going to do no harm to the rest of the population because they're 'naturally immune' (heterosexuals). Why then do you worry about 'gays' proselytizing? I'm sure you have no answers to my questions, so you'll try to escape by providing 'alternate facts' – the lies dished out by your society since Christianity came about. Let me also point out how manipulative your scientists are. While reporting a 'spectacular' finding that 1 in 10 sheep is 'gay' (how callously they use human classifications on the animals) they hide the fact that 1 in 10 is actually heterosexual. In her book "Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in nature and people, Joan Roughgarden – professor of evolutionary ecology and geophysics at Stanford University, reports that "Sheep are notoriously gay, engaging in frequent anal sex". Note that she states that there are "effeminate males" that prefer to be with the ewes and dislike gay sex. Thus, it's clear that the heterosexual sheep has the brain of a woman – not the sheep who exclusively mates with the males, as speculated by the media. 5.) Proselytizing for a public gay agenda - is as wrong as proselytizing for the public adoption of (10 commandments or) America as a Christian Nation. You can proselytize for a religious order --- but even that is difficult and Christians often resort to bribing, threatening and other unfair means. But you cannot proselytize for something that needs an inner drive. If men do not have sexual feelings for other men, no one can proselytize them. Also, unlike male-female sex, there is no power or straight identity to be gained as a reward for going against their natural instincts. But let's say you're right about the gay proselytizing thing .If I am to be accused of proselytizing, at least its for the straight cause. However, it exposes your fear. You understand, as did most religious people not so long ago, that such feelings are widespread amongst men, and mere justifying it or talking about it would make all men want to engage in it. Well they were right, only the clever heterosexual society found a way out by imprisoning sexual desires within sexual identities and talking about them only in the context of those identities. With strategic power politics and divide and rule policy, it has worked well.. By the way, if proselytizing is wrong what do you feel about enforcing heterosexuality on straight men? How about forcing heterosexualization on vulnerable3 third world societies. Yeah sure, your theory that while heterosexuality is normal and biological, sexual desire for men is abnormal and needs a cause, while heterosexuality apparently doesn't. - this theory doesn't apply in other species, and there is no reason why it should happen in ours. - How come so many societies successfully carried on --- some since the beginning of human race to this day --- running primarily on sexual bonds between men, limiting sex with women just to procreation? - How come Greeks believed that men need women only for procreation, and they wished even that could be done away with. - How do you explain an ancient Afghan saying which goes: Women are for procreation, Men for pleasure. Afghans are a macho warrior race. A rare, abnormal phenomenon cannot command so much importance and respect that too without the force of religions like Christianity. In fact inspite of a hostile religion like Islam. - Do you think the majority of men in all these cultures described above were living with an anomaly (and you are not!) or that they were all feminine. - How do you explain all those western young straight men calling up counseling lines or posting on net, wondering (while they know they're straight), why do they still feel eroticism towards males, worrying to hell, if they're not really gay….. - How come these macho so-called heterosexual men sexually abuse vulnerable men when they have power over them and an occasion which will not give them a 'homosexual' label --- like during hazing in universities, in prison institutions, with POWs, etc. The first thing they want to do is to strip you and ask you to masturbate before them. Surely if they abhorred male eroticism so much as portrayed by your culture (including porn films) then they should puke at even the thought of this. Any explanations – you heterosexuals are usually ready with an explanation, however far-fetched it is. Certainly the Greeks and other ancient civilisations frowned upon gays *(feminine men who exclusively sought receptive anal intercourse thinking of their anus as vagina!). So gays have been oppressed for long. However, straight men did have a great time during the Greek period. Gay men and heterosexual queers however led normal lives, actually better than normal lives, in the very early periods. Indeed they were the priests and healers, and were considered two spirited --- not sick, as your western society does today. Yes, but humans ain't birds, are we? We are mammals and will have similarities with other mammals, esp. primates. Can you name some of those primates and give a little detail about their sexual lives including monogamy? Eventhough I'd not use the same terminology, basically, what you're saying is right. But it does not prove that mammals are ever heterosexuals. All male mammals have sex with males as well as females. Sex with females is basically related with procreation. I've already proved my points about mammals/ primates and their committed lifelong bonds with same-sex, while temporary, non-attached sex acts with opposite sex. ??? This seems to contradict you earlier assertion that over 90% of birds pair up exclusively. There have been studies that have shown that although birds were previously believed to be monogamous, they are actually not so. Monogamy whether with a male partner or a female is however, an entirely different topic and I'm all for it. Of course they have nothing to do with heterosexuality. They are stupid western/ Christian creations. I hope this is the last time I hear of it, lest I loose my patience.
I should probably not have bothered to answer a 'hate' post like that of Jolly Rogders, because afterall I'm here for a serious debate not mud slinging or abusing.matches. But when you can win, it's hard to resist the temptations. As for you, why do you have so much attachment to a label which is unreal, oppressive for others and for the self, biased, bigoted, harmful...... Why do you need a label to bond with women, if that's what you'd rather do! Why do you feel scared without the label.
