Responding to the Bullies

Anything and everything about gay life anywhere in the world, especially Asia, other than Thailand.
Post Reply
RichLB
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Responding to the Bullies

Post by RichLB »

I have to precede all this by confessing it is written tongue in cheek, but with all the attention being given to homophobia I thought I’d try to stir the kettle. Of course, I also admit I am pretty persuaded by my own argument.

To be similarly influenced, one must simply recognize that the penis has been designed to perform three functions. First, it eliminates wastes. Second, it is essential for procreation of the species. And third, it provides pleasure. This last use is the source of the dilemma – the old Protestant Ethic denies “fun” as a legitimate goal. As a result, a lot of things sexual have been distorted in order to force sex into something consistent with this ethic. I want to break this mold and look at sex objectively in terms of function 3 – sex for fun.

I take the position that exclusive heterosexuality is, in fact, unnatural. That is, heterosexuality does not maximize fun – although I admit it is necessary for procreation, of course. Let me justify that seemingly absurd claim.

First, let’s look at the anatomy of the sexual organs. The seat of female stimulation is the clitoris. This is located near the entrance of the vagina – a position which requires no penile penetration to excite. If heterosexuality were “natural” would not the clitoris have evolved to be located within the vagina and thus requiring intercourse to create pleasure? The fact is that there are no trigger points within the vagina which provide physical pleasure for the woman.

The female anatomy also creates additional problems for heterosexuals. Vaginas stretch. After childbirth the walls of the vagina often reach the condition of providing only minimal stimulation for an inserted penis. This just doesn’t make sense for a species which supposedly has evolved to reproduce itself by repeated coupling.

Now let’s look at the male. We men have two trigger points of pleasure – the glans penis and the prostate. As we know, the glans penis is located at the end of the penis and on the underside. Doesn’t it make sense that if we were designed to require vaginal insertion for pleasure that the glans penis would have evolved to be close to the body and on top in order to be stimulated by intercourse?

Then there is the prostate. Heterosexual intercourse provides no direct way of stimulating this organ, yet heterosexual antagonists insist that our maker must have made a mistake in designing a body part which can provide pleasure sexually only by a male anatomy.

We also should looks at the misalignment of parts. The penis is in the shape of a pole, the vagina is in the shape of a button hole. In order to provide heterosexual pleasure doesn’t it seem that these parts would have evolved to be more similar in construction? One would have expected the penis to be shaped more like a hatchet. It might be noticed that the shape of the penis as nature created it is much better designed for either anal or oral insertion than it is for vaginal.

Heterosexuals must also face the dilemma of the orgasm. Females are capable, and often require, multiple orgasms to achieve physical satisfaction – with each successive orgasm more intense than the first. Men, on the other hand, are usually satisfied and finished after a single climax. Rare is the woman who feels complete after intercourse while the male is happy and sated.

When this is combined with time to orgasm, real problems occur. Masters and Johnson have shown that women typically need 10 minutes to ½ hour after insertion to achieve climax and men between 30 seconds to 3 minutes. Thus, it is only by males practicing unnatural behavior that both can arrive at simultaneous orgasm or women any climax at all. The result is that the female partner in heterosexual relations is seldom satisfied during heterosexual intercourse.

Heterosexuals also experience the dilemma created by differences in erotic stimuli. Women are generally believed to need an emotional component to their sexual relations before enjoying the experience. Men, on the other hand, are visually stimulated. Again, the result is an unnatural pairing of partners. Given the emotional nature of the female’s eroticization, they are normally predisposed to monogamy. Men, due to the abundance of visual stimuli are eroticized by numerous potential partners. Thus, it is only by exercising unnatural constraints that a sexual contract between men and women proves to be satisfactory.

The notion that heterosexuality is natural as judged by the behavior of other animals is also flawed. In fact, almost all other creatures engage in far more homosexual play than they do heterosexual. Females of most species are only receptive to intercourse during periods of fertility while males are continually producing hormones directing them towards release. It’s not surprising, then, that we find our brothers in the animal kingdom to be primarily homosexual except for the urge to procreate.

There are also sound psychological arguments favoring the naturalness of homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality. Evelyn Hooker as far back as 1960 was the first to study non-psychiatric patients who were homosexual. Upon administering a series of mental tests to her subjects and presenting the results to a panel of judges, no difference could be found between the two groups except that homosexuals scored on average 15 points higher on the Stanford Binet IQ test.

Further interpreting the results of Hooker’s body of work, one should note that no differences were found in terms of social adjustment or psychological health. On the face of it, this appears to be a wash until one recognizes that the psycho/socio environment for homosexuals in the 50’s and 60’s was quite hostile and yet gays emerge with the same level of adjustment.

Abraham Maslow also provides theoretical ammunition to argue homosexuality is more healthy than heterosexuality. As you may know, his widely accepted Hierarchy of Needs states that the human need system progresses through stages – physiological, security, social, ego, and finally self actualization or creativity. One, does not move to a new level until a previous need is somewhat satisfied. Reflecting on history, we recognize that far more than the predictable 10% of those who have made significant creative contributions to humanity have been homosexual.

Heterosexualists often argue that it was homosexuality which brought about the downfall of Rome. Even a cursory study of ancient Western would show the lie of that argument. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Both Ancient Greece and Rome flowered during the several hundred years when homosexuality was not only accepted, but encouraged. It is far more accurate to recognize that Rome’s fall coincided with the Edict of Constantine and the resultant discouragement of homosexuality.

Malthus also provides a warning on the insistence that exclusive heterosexuality be accepted. He theorized that overpopulation inevitably leads to three results – war, famine or pandemics. By insisting that only procreative heterosexualism be encouraged, we may very well be fulfilling his prediction in our current world. Allowing man to freely express his natural sexual urges might very well relieve the dilemma of over population.

So, the bottom line is that instead of responding to the argument that we gay people are just as natural, just as good, and just as valid as straight folk, I prefer the notion that it is WE who are the natural ones and THEY who are the aberration. I’d love to hear them be put in the position of defending their sexual orientation as many of us are repeatedly forced to do – if only internally.

It seems to me that the notion of “coming out of the closet” really means accepting nature’s directive. Since humans are designed and programmed for homosexuality, isn’t it the heterosexuals who have the problem, and not us? Perhaps it is recognizing this losing battle that motivates many of the bullies, the results of the miscreant behavior is receiving so much publicity.

And, in an effort to put out the flames before they start, let me repeat. This was written just for fun. Hope you enjoyed it.
User avatar
Bob
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:03 pm
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Responding to the Bullies

Post by Bob »

RichLB wrote: Since humans are designed and programmed for homosexuality
It's difficult to determine what part of your post is meant as jocular or, as you say, "tongue in cheek", and what part isn't. If it's all tongue in cheek, that's cool although I missed most of that nuance given you started with the statement captioned above that's absurdly untrue; however, if it's not all tongue in cheek, then I'd prescribe a lot of bed rest and vitamins......
RichLB
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Responding to the Bullies

Post by RichLB »

A predictable response, Bob, but I would be interested to know which part(s) you take issue with.
User avatar
Bob
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:03 pm
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Responding to the Bullies

Post by Bob »

RichLB wrote:A predictable response, Bob, but I would be interested to know which part(s) you take issue with.
Sorry, Rich, there's no sense (at least in my view) trying to disagree with you on particular points when I still have no clue which ones you meant tongue in cheek. It's like responding to a joke by saying "Oh, that can't be true!" and that type of response often ends up being funnier to hear than the joke itself. So, I'll stick with a couple of your premises/theories/conclusions and I'll presume you actually meant them.

You state "I prefer the notion that it is WE who are the natural ones and THEY who are the aberration" which seemingly presents a rather all-encompassing mental absurdity. That'd be like claiming that left-handed people (who also comprise about 10% or less of the population) are the natural ones and that right-handed people are the aberration? Sounds fairly ridiculous, doesn't it (even without considering how the words "natural" or "aberration" are intended or heard)?

Another grand premise "Since humans are designed and programmed for homosexuality" makes one wonder why your assertion of that so-called reality (who's gay and who's heterosexual) conflicts with what we know as...hmmmmm...reality! Some are but, as you hopefully know, the vast majority aren't. Apparently, according to your premise, the end result rarely follows any design or programming.

I really have difficulty understanding somebody's point when they use such words as "unnatural", "aberration", "good", "bad", and the like and too often I take those words to reflect the underlying bias of whoever it is that's using them (and understand that the reader could very well view those words quite differently). Those type of words also conjure up the underlying premise, which I reject in the first place, that small (percentage-wise) minority groups (gays, red-headed people, left-handers, etc.) somehow feel the need to justify their existence (let alone attempting to assert some type of superiority). Who cares why we're gay and they're not? Enjoying whatever it is you are doesn't seem to require, at least to me, either an underlying justification or comparisons with others. Just enjoy it (or not as it is a free world I suppose).

You conclude with a statement about bullying that, respectfully, is fairly beyond my comprehension so I won't respond to that.
RichLB
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Responding to the Bullies

Post by RichLB »

Bob, I'm tempted to dismiss your input as pure drivel. The fact that you have difficulty with language does not invalidate anything. I accept that you dismiss the conclusion of the presented evidence without rebutting any of it or providing any justification other than pluralistic ignorance. Support your point of view or at least point out the errors of the data I present. For me, it's not enough to merely stamp your foot and huff. make your case!

PS: I enjoy our debates and trust you don't take any of it personally. We consistently disagree and I suspect you enjoy our fencing as much as I do.
User avatar
Bob
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:03 pm
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Responding to the Bullies

Post by Bob »

RichLB wrote: I enjoy our debates and trust you don't take any of it personally. We consistently disagree and I suspect you enjoy our fencing as much as I do.
No problem, I take it with the same attitude....and glad to see you're not taking it personally (as it isn't intended).

But I weary easily especially when you make some claim about "presented evidence." I fully understand the concept of "2 + 2 = 4" but, when you start with the number 7 as your answer (that being the conclusions that fly in the face of what we know and can see), it doesn't add up. But it's nice we're all fully entitled to believe what we want.
RichLB
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Responding to the Bullies

Post by RichLB »

But which of us is claiming that 2 + 2 = 7. I have merely presented anatomical truth and the results of the Hooker studies together with the implication of Maslow's and Malthus' theories. Yet, you seem to insist prevailing wisdom applies without debunking any of the data presented. You are, of course, free to cling to your preconceptions, but without providing more data other than the beliefs of the majority I remain unmoved. We're lucky Columbus didn't follow your example.
User avatar
Bob
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:03 pm
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Responding to the Bullies

Post by Bob »

RichLB wrote: We're lucky Columbus didn't follow your example.
If he had, maybe he would have been lucky enough to land in Thailand! (or was he too at Area 51?)
RichLB
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Responding to the Bullies

Post by RichLB »

Laughing. He might very well have docked in Pattaya if it hadn't been for the unintended clump of land that got in the way.
Post Reply