Buddha

The use of the words 'gay' or 'homo' to refer to a particular taste in sex or a particular sex act is although technically wrong, is not harmful. But to use it as an idenitity -- that too a biological identity is completely absurd. These words -- although coined as a reference to a 'disease' --- were used by earlier men to refer to particular tastes in sex, that made men no different from each other than did a taste in let's say food. As the western society became mixed-gender (heterosexual) and the heat on male-male bonds increased, different kinds of men were invited to come under the 'gay' banner as a political refuge. What made the people come together was their social oppression, i.e., a common enemy --- not a common biological trait. Some of them were biologically so different as chalk from cheese. As this identity became politically extremely strong, those who really fit well in this order --- the gay men referred above --- in order to consolidate their power are now trying to make the 'gay' identity look natural and biological. And they would stop at nothing to prove this --- by hook or by crook. Misusing science to achieve this end is fairly easy. They are even reinventing a 'gay' history where they are claiming varied expressions of even mainstream gender and sexuality in the past as 'gay'. But this is all a manipulation of truth. And it affects a majority of people negatively who are condemned to suffer in silence.

The study on homosexuality and pheromones are another eye-wash. The basics of such a theory are wrong. How can the conculsions be correct. There is no such thing as 'sexual orientation'. 'Gay' is a socio-political identity not a biological identity. People who classify themselves as gay, or those who are forcibly classified as such differ so much from each other --- especially in terms of gender --- which is a biological divide. How can you conduct a biological study on a political group? All they would do is pick up 'men' with strong feminine gender (most of the 'gay' population) and then conduct studies that actually reflect their gender and not sexual orientation. But the results are forwarded as that representing sexual orientation. Whereas, when masculine men are tested they would provide another set of results. This is not the first time, the western society used science to prove sexuality as it saw it. In the earlier days they conducted researches on 'homosexuals' that came to mental asylums and then concluded that most homosexual men are mentally sick. No one thought at that time that the wrong sampling could be leading to wrong conclusions. Any study which seeks to study 'gay' men without referring to their 'gender' will lead to wrong conclusions --- but ones that will suit the western world fine. Has any of these studies tried to clearly define what 'gay' is? and clearly demarcate them from heterosexuals --- by devising clear cut definitions? These definitions are not even clear in the general society where confusions on these abound. Can any one here clearly define what is a: - homosexual - heterosexual?

Let me add...... It's not that the given sexual labels represent the true likes and dislikes of people. When the sexual categories are so mismatched as to cater to the real sexual and gender needs of people, and when there are such power inequations, and social hostilities attached, then the labels that people keep have more to do with reasons other than their real sexual drive. For people, their gender orientation is much more important than their alleged 'sexual orienation'. And if they have to make a choice (as the mismatched sexual orientation system forces them to) they will opt for an identity that reflects their true gender orientation, even if does not fully respresent their sexual feelings. Again, sexual drives are not so fixed and binary as the theory of sexual orientation suggests. To start with, there are more than just the male and female categories as far as sexual preference is concerned. There is at least a third dimension. If you're saying that it is not possible to talk about sexual feelings without attaching the socio-political identities to them, then you're sadly mistaken. In fact one can talk better about their individual sexual feelings without reference to these sexual identities. For one thing, these identities have so many other baggages and stereotypes attached to them --- that they may give a completely different picture than the reality. I mean, if a man says he's straight (here = heterosexual), but still wants to make out with you, and you too are interested, what difference does it make. In my workshops (with straight men = by 'straight' I mean 'normal'/ general men, there is no straight or gay category in my society), if I raise the issue of male-male sexuality by talking about 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' identities they will all become tight lipped or say a couple of negative things. When I raise the issue without attaching labels they all come out with their own such feelings and experiences. Such is the negative effect of 'sexual orientation' on straight men. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sexual orientation seems to work for many people, but only in an artificially created environment --- like that has been created in the west. Most people find ways to adjust themselves into this system even if they are inconvenienced. But in order to create that artificial world, you loose out on so many important things. Just like you ruin nature to build factories. There are so many unhealthy, even unnatural practices going on in the west -- of which 'sexual orientation' is a part. But that is a differen story.

It's not a homophobic plot. Not at all. The plot is against men. Straight men to be more precise. The whole thing is meant to control straight male behaviour. Queer heterosexuals although are one of the worst victims. But even if you guys are not going to concede the motive that I've ascribed, you should answer the important points that I've raised.

Can Dak and everybody else please tell me, THAT IF THE CONCEPT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS SO NATURAL, AND GENDER ORIENTATION IS IMMATERIAL, WHY DON'T THE HETEROSEXUAL/ STRAIGHT (SIC) COMMUNITY INCLUDE TRANSGENDERED HETEROSEXUALS AMIDST IT'S FOLD. WHY ARE THEY FORCED TO SEEK ANOTHER IDENTITY -- ONE THAT IS BASED ON THEIR GENDER? Here's my analysis (but do give me yours!): It is so, so that the heterosexual society can showcase itself as masculine, which would be impossible with transgendered men amidst themselves. It's the same reason why straight men are not acknowledged amongst the 'gay' community. And no one talks about straight-gays when they talk about homosexuality -- so that homosexuality can be show-cased as queer.

It's best that I ignore you too.

They know they are not females. But they know they are not males either. They consider themselves the third gender. Actually they are males from the outside but not 'men', because they are female from the inside. Male is an incomplete description of a human being. For me, this statement shows 'homosexual' haughtiness. You are rejecting their deepest feelings as invalid. What you consider them to be is more important than what they consider themselves to be. Isn't this how heterosexual people treated you in the beginning? Even now. Rejecting your deepest experiences as invalid. How is your statement not different from an obstinate assertion (from a position of power) that your sexual attraction for men is bullshit? It is a choice that you have made. A disease that you acquired because your father was distant? So why do you think transgendered men think of themselves as females. Are they nuts? mentally sick? misguided people? Just making a choice? By the way, in my analysis, gay men are some degrees up than transgendered males in terms of masculinity. They don't feel they are women, but they don't feel quite men either (more like meterosexuals). It is this feeling different genderwise from 'men' that prompts them to seek a different identity -- which they have found (ironically) in a sexual identity, which the heterosexual society was only too willing to give --- as it suited its agenda. Remember, all gay men feel different from other boys right from their childhood, even when their sexuality hasn't taken shape. This gender difference they easily confuse with sexual preference (sic) --- in a heterosexual society -- for as individuals our gender is strongly tied to our sexual preference and other parts of personality. The 'gay' space gives enormous powers to...well....gay men. Even if for this they have to accept the insubordination of 'heterosexuality'. Without this gay space they were just people with no space and lots of oppression. Now both homosexuals and heterosexuals are complimentary to each other, inspite of being in a minority. Even when gay men fight heterosexuals for more rights within this arrangement. The majority, which is straight men on both side of the divide are disempowered mute victims. And gay men vigorously defend this space, even with hostility, from transgendered 'heterosexuals' who felt 'one' with them, and wanted to be a part of them. Few people know that the stonewall riots that sparked off the 'gay' movement was started by transgendered heterosexuals. transgendered heterosexuals were so dejected by 'homosexual's that they were then forced to establish another identity --- 'transgendered'. And while gay men defend their space from transgendered heterosexuals who are their natural ally, they do not want to leave their jurisdiction on straight men (who don't really have a space in the heavily gender-bender gay community, and are called 'straight-acting' signifying that the gay community does not take their straightness seriously). Giving up on straight men or including queer heterosexuals will signify the invalidity of 'sexual orientation' that gives the gay community its existence and power base. I have to confirm this, but probably, in the beginning the gay identity was forwarded not as a biological identity but more as a socio-political identity, which is now being hijacked to make it seem like a biological identity. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Since you apparently don't agree with my conclusions I will end this line of argument here. I can point out other drawbacks in the 'sexual orientation' concept. Though I will continue to raise the above issue, not as a part of this argument. Well, fair enough. I know gay men find it impossible to believe. I will not use it as an argument to support my point. I'll give the evidence when we are through with the discussion on the validity of 'sexual orientation'. But, when you are so used to seeing it all around you, it is not possible not to reflect it in your analysis. After all, everything is interrelated. Your post sounds as if you are beginning to loose your temper here? Why, it's only a discussion.

I have been posting long posts with a number of 'arguments' to support my case. A number of them are established facts now, and even have accredited papers and books published on them. Many of them are available on the net. I've not attached links or quotes everywhere, but that is because I wanted people to discuss them first, and I can do it if it is required. Other arguments include things which are common knowledge. Still others include things that I have learnt during my work. Unfortunately, people have chosen to ignore the 'facts' that I have provided. Choosing not to comment on them. I'm still waiting for people to show me that I am wrong --- not by bashing me nor by throwing the accepted positions at me, but taking up my points (especially the main points) one by one and showing me how my conclusions are wrong.

My opposition is not to you guys personally. I'm confronting a very powerful culture which is subverting our society and disempowering us. I guess, when we come here to discuss 'gay gene' and 'homosexuality' we already come with certain positions -- stated or not. Even if the positions are so acceptable and 'normal' in our society that we take them for granted. Well, I wouldn't want to make enemies on this board. Opposition is good because it generates discussion. Hostility is not good. And I can see some of that here. This is probably because I'm challenging accepted positions which people on this board --- on both sides of the argument --- strongly relate to, and they derive social and political power out of these accepted positions, concepts and values. But there may be (inadvertently) flaws in my method of arguing too. If you or anyone can point that out -- I can try to change that. Western culture does make me angry, when I see it generating so much misery around me -- in my far off country. Heterosexual and homosexual haughtiness also makes me angry. I guess my anger shows in my posts making some of you angry. But for those of you who are sincerely seeking knowledge such an exchange of views may not be bad. I guess, my 'insulting' comments are directed only to those who make remarks downgrading others. And there are plenty of them here. A lot of those 'heterosexual' remarks (e.g. "I find sex between lesbians sexy but between men bad") are nothing but hot air balloons deriving their power from accepted standard western positions. And it's too tempting not to burst those balloons when you know you have the knowledge to do that. Such statements assert a powerful position, without actually saying so. If you don't burst their balloon they will continue to oppress.

Well, 'standard' doesn't always mean right. And standard for whom: the west? When we go out to seek truth we may have to look beyond accepted standards, if there is empirical evidence. I think even on a 'scientific' board. The point is whether you accept the other definition of male and female. If not, on what basis do you reject the inner-sex? You should know, in any case, that the traditional world does not think that way. It's a typical western definition of sex/ gender identity, but one which leads to a lot of confusion. Let me try another angle: It is not just enough to say sexual attraction of a male for another male. A man who likes straight (masculine) men will never even think of a third gender male as a 'man'. Similarly, transgendered males will never think of themselves as 'men' even if the society's standards insist that he is so. What will then happen is that transgendered males will start seeing themselves as diseased, because they do not fit into the 'standards'. What good are standards that make such a large group of people redundant. In our society, e.g., the third gender (transgendered) are referred to as 'she' and not 'he'. Even in the west transgendered and gay men prefer to use 'she' for themselves, even though the society insist on calling them 'men' and 'he'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In all societies other than modern western societies, there are at least three genders: man, woman and the third gender, i.e. those who are both male and female. Outer sex Inner sex Sexual preference man male male does not matter woman female female* does not matter Third Gender male/ female/ ambiguous ambiguous In some societies women's gender is not given importance and women who consider themselves males are also seen as 'women'. third gender does includes transgendered and intersexed persons who cannot be conveniently put in one of the two basic genders groups.

Well' date=' Charles needs vested interests to further his theory. Well, as long as the heterosexual society is in power, you will not see such things being researched. Even if they come out in research the society will find a way to ignore it, belittle it. After all, there is documented proof of Jesus being involved with men. Has it changed any of the views regarding Jesus or about sex between men in general. All that Bagemihl's highly scientific research was good for was one programme on T.V., and the heterosexual society was back with it's 'heterosexual'-is-natural majority, 'homosexuality'-is-anomaly business. All those researches proving that all warrior societies eulogised love between males has not made the society stop its propaganda of sexual-desire-for-another-man = 'gay' = feminine. Of course, even if a vague scientist brings out a research paper claiming that h/she has found that 'homosexuals' (sic) has brains of women, that is entirely a different matter. This gels in well with the heterosexual agenda. Every small and big paper -- considereing it's eternal duty -- will cover it prominently, and every one will seem to be in agreement (even if someone were to challenge who would highlight it!), even if the thing is not conclusively proved and it is just speculation.

Those two words say it all. They have all the haughtiness of a 'group' in power' date=' which can manipulate things as it likes, where no one has the authority to question. And when someone does question, they are taken aback. The 'gay' friendly scientists who would support male-male bonds as long as they are safely trapped within the gay fold but scoff at the idea of straight men being involved. Yet, how can the heterosexual science attempt to figure out what causes (so-called) homosexuality, when it can't for the life of it figure out what causes heterosexuality (sic) which is what most of the scientists claim to be. If you can't understand yourselves how can you understand so-called 'others'. And why do you want to understand those 'others' when you have no clue as to your own 'cause'. Those two words also expose the motives of the heterosexual agenda, in whose hands science --- the modern religion --- is an important tool. Well, you can get away with anything you say --- after all it's a heterosexual society. But you know damn well that is not true. Does your science have a 'proof' of it? If masculinity (as hinted by alleged Y chromosome and testosterone) determined sexual attraction towards women, surely the majority of transgendered and intersexed men would not have been heterosexual. If Y Chromosome determined sexual attraction for women, women had no chance in hell to be attracted to other women. And traditional masculine/ warrior customs would not have expected their macho males to keep away from women in order to preserve their masculinity. -------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the links provided without answering the point directly, it again points to a 'haughy' attitude --- that you are relying on the power of the entire heterosexual society, having no need to explain it yourself. I read the link briefly (only one was accessible). There is no mention of the word heteroseuxality. The gene theory in regard to homosexuality (sic) is talked about but then it also says that the gene theory could not be verfied in subsequent experiments. The rest is of course speculation. The male-female sex in the wild is talked about, but we all know it happens. Of course it was exaggerated and given singular importance --- citing (darwin's theory of sexual) evolution with a complete disregard to other side of animal sexuality --- but then what is new? and How does it lead to 'heterosexuality' among animals --- the exclusive, continuous and intimate bonding need with women. It makes no claim to heterosexuality being determined by y chromosome or testosterone. As I have already mentioned this has nothing to do with heterosexuality --- the male-female mating and bonding. In fact plants are proof that male-female can mate without any sexual attraction whatsoever --- without even knowing each other. This further points to the possibility that nature just chose to ride piggy back on sexual desire to accomplish procreation --- which is an important function of nature --- but not the single most important function --- and only in conjunction with other aspects of life. I hope you are not a scientist, because you would make a very poor scientist. Someone who is completely distanced from reality. Leave alone what is common knowledge you are not even in touch with latest scientific developments. But you are rather just preferring to ignore the rest of the information. As if by avoiding it will cease to exist. That's the old 'heterosexual' trick. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUSION: It is absurd to study human sexuality in abstracts. Science cannot get anywhere unless it acknowledges that sexuality has many aspects and then look at the complete picture -- without biases. Just studying, in isolation and with improper motives, a few aspects of socio-sexual behaviour based on socio-sexual identities, taking the identities for their face value, without any knowledge whatsoever of how social forces mould and change natural sexual desires into sexual identities and behaviour ----- is not going to throw up much answers. Moral of the story Regarding what causes 'homosexuality' (sic)" If you can't seem to find the right answers to your questions no matter how much you try, then you should examine your question, for more likely it is your question which is wrong.

Well, you have already hinted at the point I was making. The western society is a superficial one. It validates only that which can be seen from the outside. Therefore for it, one's biological sex is determined only by one's outer-sex organs. There is a lot in biology which can not be seen directly, but may be more important to an individual's sex identity than his or her outer sex. And this is 'inner-sex' or gender, which the western society does not acknowledge as biological. It insists that it is all social -- it is learned. The rest of the world has long known and acknowledged the inner-sex. A person's basic gender/ sex identity is made up of both outer sex and inner sex (gender). Thus a person may be a male from the outside but may strongly consider him a female from the inside (the degrees vary). Then his outer sex becomes irrelevant to him. In effect, it gives that person a unique gender-identity different from both male and female. Gender or inner-sex is extremely important. If a male does not think of himself as a male, relates to others as a female --- while others too relate to him as a female, it would be absurd to keep calling him a man, because he was born with a penis. This western social obstinacy has driven many a transgendered males to start hating their male sex organs. What use is science if it does not understand human beings, but works on its own set biases. How do you reckon it will have any competency to understand wild animals. Now coming back to the definition of sexual orienatation. For the time being, assuming that sexual orientation is a valid concept, it still has to account for at least three (but actually many more) basic identities. And thus the following basic combinations of sexual orientation would emerge. man to man man to woman man to third gender man to man and woman man to man and third gender man to man, woman and third gender third gender to woman third gender to man* third gender to third gender* third gender to woman and man third gender to woman, man and third gender (And I'm not even going to elaborate on the various combinations of female sexual orientation.) * these are the combinations that essentially make up today's 'gay' identity. Even if it's jurisdiction is expanded to include man-to-man combination, as the society does not want that in the mainstream. The western society will not fancy giving names to all these combinations. It would much rather club them together for its much coveted goal of 'standardisation'. But still, there is hardly any justification --- apart from social biases --- for clubbing male-to-male with male-to-third gender and the groups marked with *. Male attraction to third gender is more akin to male attraction to women. This has been acknowledged all through the history. Men, especially in traditional societies, when they go to the third gender, they don't think they are having sex with men. For them this attraction is just an extension of theie sexual attraction for women. Similarly, the third gender males when they have sex with men do not think of themselves as 'men' having sex with men. They think of themselves as a woman having sex with men. And the man in this combination is not thought of as homosexual, but as 'heterosexual'. Science cannot afford to brush aside how people feel naturally. There are other important questions, as to how a person's identity can be defined not on the basis of who he is, but on the basis of what he likes. Who he is 'naturally' is going to be stable, but what he likes is subject to change. Fluidity apart, there are so many important parts of what a person likes sexually other than the sex-identity of that partner. Sex-identity of partner is made important only because it's persecuted. The importance of human sexuality as a part of his overall existence, in any case has been blown out of proportion in the west. How can you break a man from other men and put him together with the third gender because it is assumed that their sexual liking are the same (when it is not true!). If the man-who-likes-men is clubbed with third-gender-who-like-men , then it is only reasonable that women-who-like-men should also be clubbed in the same group. So there will be basically three groups: All people who like men All people who like women All people who like the third gender apart from people who like combinatiions. Sexuality is not so simple. Human beings are not products you can standardise. Human beings have feelings.

I do not want to get involved in another discussion, but I think I have the answer. Gay guys have a lot of femininity inside them. That's natural and positive. It's by no way limited to males who desire men. Queers can as often be heterosexual and bisexual as well. The society has cruelly suppressed femininity in males for thousands of years. When the society does that stuff to natural things, these qualities then take an extremely negative shape and come out in 'abnormal' ways. What we see in 'gay' guys is a mutilated and diseased form of male femininity that was meant to be beautiful and powerful.

1. What I'm saying is that the standard definitions have flaws, which the western society has not questioned. To prove my point, may I ask you to further define what you understand by "same-sex". 2. Men have sex for reasons other than their sexual desire. I hope you know that. Men have sex under pressure of social 'masculinity' roles and for social power that comes from having sex with women. Men also forego forbidden sex when deep down they want to have it. They abstain under pressures of social masculinity roles and for the disempowerment that can follow. What is important for your definition: sexual behaviour or sexual desire. For they are not the same thing.

That is a 'heterosexual' view. Modern science is an institution of the heterosexual society and so it is bound to reach at such conclusions. What is the scientific proof that reproduction is the basic purpose of sexual desire and that it has not been hijacked to help in reproduction. What I want to say is --- is it possible that sexual desire would be there even if this 'sexual dimorphism' had not taken place. The earlier example of the fish and hermaphrodite beings surely point to this possibility. In other words sexual desire seems to precede 'sexual dimorphism'. In any case, one 'thing' can have several purposes. Like mouth is used to eat and to speak. To say that mouth was meant only to eat and has been hijacked to speak, is a bit .....bigoted. If sexual desire was only meant for reproduction, nature had all the means to restrict such desire to reproduction. Evolution can surely take care of that. Allegedly it does not believe in 'wasteful' endeavours. Even if we ignore sexual desire between men, why does sexual desire happen when reproduction has occurred. Why is there sexual pleasure in body areas other than the vagina and penis? Everything in the nature has purpose. If scientists cannot figure something out, it does not cease to exist. Scientists should try to understand nature rather than to 'determine' it. Scientists can understand nature only if they go with an open mind, with humility and with a respect for nature.

Not sex as we know it. furthermore' date=' there is no heterosexuality or homosexuality involved. Point: Nature is not dependant on 'heterosexuality' to reproduce. Simplicity may not necessarily be a disadvantage. More complex beings are not necessarily better off. Adaptation or no adaptation, 'simple' beings have survived much longer than the ones than that are complex (diverse) and have this ability to adapt. And survived better. In any case, a heterosexual society has no respect or use for all that diversity that it claims the credit for.

In my analysis, there is no such thing as 'gay' if it refers to sexual orientation. The whole concept of sexual orientation is flawed and is supposed to manipulate the society (especially men) in a particular way --- in order to bring about a heterosexual society. Since, it's an identity that you identify with, why don't you tell me your definition of 'gay'? And we can take this discussion from there. In my society, 'gay', 'homosexual' identities are considered the modern westernised versions of the traditional 'third gender' identities. And third gender refers to males who are females from inside. Even in the west, if you look at the origin of the word 'gay' you would understand. In the beginning the word 'gay' was used for a group of limp wristed, swinging queens who liked men. It was used to refer to their 'chirpiness' (I don't know what is the right word) and their "loose character" regarding sex. Gay was also used for female prostitutes earlier. These 'queens' were earlier also referred to as "Mollies". So there!

... And another thing don't you think that 'bisexuality' rather than 'heterosexuality' has the best evolutionary benefits for the human species.