wikipedia
dictionary.com
Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
wikipedia
dictionary.com
I'm not interested in how the heterosexual society and its institutions define it!
Here are my own reservations about the definition:
DEFINITION OF HETEROSEXUALITY
The thing with English language is that the same word can mean so many closely related but obviously different things, that it is easy to manipulate and do selective usage of these terms to distort the truth subtly but immensely.
E.g., when talking about numbers of homosexuals, people tend to define it as those who have 'exclusive' sex with men. So you have a number of 10%.
But when they talk about numbers of heterosexuals, suddenly, the definition includes anyone who has ever had sex with females, and no exclusivity is needed. So then you have a percentage of 90% of heterosexuals.
Yet again, when it is like exerting the social power of 'heterosexuality' or to marginalise same sex behaviour, then it is back to heterosexual is 'exclusive' sex between males and females as is evident from the examples on this thread on sci-forums:Calling all heterosexuals
Look at some of the ways people define heterosexuality here:
"How can someone define themselves heterosexual and still be attracted to the same sex?
Heterosexual by definition means "Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex." So this poll is technically invalid, if not, then people's definitions of their own sexuality are skewed."
This pretty much aptly sums up the common perception of 'heterosexuality', (but which conveninetly changes when talking about the percentage of heterosexuals).
It's also because of the social pressures --- that anyone who has (whether willingly or unwillingly), sex with women will call himself 'heterosexual' whether or not he has lots of sex with men.
While, it is only he who is exclusively into men, who will call himself 'gay'.
But science will be completely a useless institution if it further adds to the confusion by not defining what it really means by the terms it uses.
And to use a definition (whether it is heterosexuality or homosexuality) which is against the popular usage of the term is also creating deiberate confusion on the issue and should be considered unethical for scientists.
Here are my own reservations about the definition:
DEFINITION OF HETEROSEXUALITY
The thing with English language is that the same word can mean so many closely related but obviously different things, that it is easy to manipulate and do selective usage of these terms to distort the truth subtly but immensely.
E.g., when talking about numbers of homosexuals, people tend to define it as those who have 'exclusive' sex with men. So you have a number of 10%.
But when they talk about numbers of heterosexuals, suddenly, the definition includes anyone who has ever had sex with females, and no exclusivity is needed. So then you have a percentage of 90% of heterosexuals.
Yet again, when it is like exerting the social power of 'heterosexuality' or to marginalise same sex behaviour, then it is back to heterosexual is 'exclusive' sex between males and females as is evident from the examples on this thread on sci-forums:Calling all heterosexuals
Look at some of the ways people define heterosexuality here:
"How can someone define themselves heterosexual and still be attracted to the same sex?
Heterosexual by definition means "Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex." So this poll is technically invalid, if not, then people's definitions of their own sexuality are skewed."
This pretty much aptly sums up the common perception of 'heterosexuality', (but which conveninetly changes when talking about the percentage of heterosexuals).
It's also because of the social pressures --- that anyone who has (whether willingly or unwillingly), sex with women will call himself 'heterosexual' whether or not he has lots of sex with men.
While, it is only he who is exclusively into men, who will call himself 'gay'.
But science will be completely a useless institution if it further adds to the confusion by not defining what it really means by the terms it uses.
And to use a definition (whether it is heterosexuality or homosexuality) which is against the popular usage of the term is also creating deiberate confusion on the issue and should be considered unethical for scientists.
Last edited:
DEFINITION OF HETEROSEXUALITY - II
Another major confusion created by the term heterosexuality is --- and it is (ab)used majorly by various social institutions to distort the truth about male gender and sexuality --- is that......
.....heterosexuality is used for any kind of sexual activity between male and female.
In particular, it is used to refer to three quite different kinds of male-female sex:
- Reproductive male-female sex
- Male-female sex for pleasure
- Male-female sex for bonding
Science uses the confusion thus created in a major way to grant 'scientific' sanction to the last two of the above --- which form the core of heterosexuality.
In other words, nature supports only the first of the list --- i.e. male-female sex for procreation. Sex between male and female is hardly ever used for pleasure in the wild. And its use for emotional long term bonding is extremely rare --- as in caused by some genetic or other stuff.
So based on the prevalence of male-female sex for procreation, science says that 'heterosexuality' is natural. But then it is automatically taken to also validate male-female sex for pleasure or for bonding --- which is a peculiar human condition brought about by force!
It is obvious that when we are talking science we should clearly define things --- and use defintions and terms which are not only unambiguous and have no room for misinterpretation or distortion, but are also free from unnecessary social baggages like stereotypes and power (or lack of it) appendages.
Another major confusion created by the term heterosexuality is --- and it is (ab)used majorly by various social institutions to distort the truth about male gender and sexuality --- is that......
.....heterosexuality is used for any kind of sexual activity between male and female.
In particular, it is used to refer to three quite different kinds of male-female sex:
- Reproductive male-female sex
- Male-female sex for pleasure
- Male-female sex for bonding
Science uses the confusion thus created in a major way to grant 'scientific' sanction to the last two of the above --- which form the core of heterosexuality.
In other words, nature supports only the first of the list --- i.e. male-female sex for procreation. Sex between male and female is hardly ever used for pleasure in the wild. And its use for emotional long term bonding is extremely rare --- as in caused by some genetic or other stuff.
So based on the prevalence of male-female sex for procreation, science says that 'heterosexuality' is natural. But then it is automatically taken to also validate male-female sex for pleasure or for bonding --- which is a peculiar human condition brought about by force!
It is obvious that when we are talking science we should clearly define things --- and use defintions and terms which are not only unambiguous and have no room for misinterpretation or distortion, but are also free from unnecessary social baggages like stereotypes and power (or lack of it) appendages.
Last edited:
yawn.
You never read an article that did a study on the prevalence of sexual orientation did you?
You never read an article that did a study on the prevalence of sexual orientation did you?
If you would rather sleep then I suggest that you don't participate in the discussion. why do you bother? Just go to sleep.spuriousmonkey said:
If you want to discuss then answer the points I have raised.
and then you have the nerves to complain about me not being scientific and what not!
you are not scientific
I thought you were going to be scientific.
Buddha1 said:
Now this all sounds like utter nonsense. Could you please cite some corroborating studies that conclusively support your claims?
And may I ask the exact way to be scientific when you want to challenge a 'scientifically' held although unsupported assumption?spuriousmonkey said:
And shouldn't 'science' be able to justify itself in the real world --- to the layman......shouldn't it be able to stand the test of questioning by the laymen.......
Is 'science' going to avoid questioning by laymen like you're doing?
THEN WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE?
No.....science has not provided any evidences either for or against the issues that I am raising!superluminal said:
Sexual orientation is a social issue, and there is little that science can do in this regard.
The term 'heterosexuality' itself has vague beginnings. For quite sometime it was used to 'scientifically' describe a sexual perversion where people got 'overly' involved into sex with the opposite sex.
The scientific institioution is heavily controlled by the 'vested interest group'. Even on a free and supposedly scientific forum like this, the vested interest group opposes questioning the heterosexual ideology and even when the group does not have any answers to the points I'm raising, it insists on thrusting the heterosexual ideology and everything else that goes with it.
paranoia.
Did the aliens make you gay?
WESTERN CONCEPTS OF SEXUALITY ARE BEING QUESTIONED BY OTHERS:
excerpted from:http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/foamycustard/fc007.htm
One such cosmology that is essential for human society is how we structure sexuality. Anthropological studies have revealed a great variety of approaches, all of which seem entirely 'natural' to the societies in which they are encountered. Western concepts of sexuality are, of course, deeply influenced by Christian concepts of sexuality, which makes them more problematical than many (although most Western people have, at least until recent years, regarded them as entirely 'natural').
(source: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html)
excerpted from:http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/foamycustard/fc007.htm
One such cosmology that is essential for human society is how we structure sexuality. Anthropological studies have revealed a great variety of approaches, all of which seem entirely 'natural' to the societies in which they are encountered. Western concepts of sexuality are, of course, deeply influenced by Christian concepts of sexuality, which makes them more problematical than many (although most Western people have, at least until recent years, regarded them as entirely 'natural').
(source: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html)
Last edited:
WESTERN CONCEPTS OF SEXUALITY ARE BEING QUESTIONED BY OTHERS:
I have found the insightful work of Michel Foucault and his various postmodern and feminist heirs to be most useful. These thinkers have done much to show how the notion of ‘sex’ in general, and more specifically, how the idea that individuals inhabit or express themselves through distinct ‘sexualities’ is a modern innovation confined largely to those cultures with their roots in northern Europe.
(source: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html)
I have found the insightful work of Michel Foucault and his various postmodern and feminist heirs to be most useful. These thinkers have done much to show how the notion of ‘sex’ in general, and more specifically, how the idea that individuals inhabit or express themselves through distinct ‘sexualities’ is a modern innovation confined largely to those cultures with their roots in northern Europe.
(source: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html)
- Status