Is, "Hetero", innate and natural?

[xssve]

Let me quote the late pianist Artur Rubenstein. IF I MISS ONE DAY OF PRACTICE, I CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE; IF I MISS TWO DAYS OF PRACTICE, THE COMPETITION CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE; AND IF I MISS THREE DAYS OF PRACTICE, THE AUDIENCE CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE.

Heterosexual Masters of Love know this to be true. So while the rest of you are poking electrical sockets and the butts of old dogs, we Masters of Love are practicing with the fair sex.

Interesting, since research suggests the opposite, i.e., gay men are more successful with women oddly enough. It may possibly have something to do with empathy.

At the bottom of the list I believe, are men who use the phrase "heterosexual masters of love".

 

[Dragonlipz]

To your original post:
More misogynistic bullshit.........well, whatever floats yer boat, dude, but I've spent a lifetime celebrating my heterosexuality and not worrying about anyone else's preferences: quite a few girls I've known batted for the other team - it never bothered me.....
I wouldn't even be here today if it weren't for an act of bravery during Nam that a 'gay' comrade was able to pull off.....he never was recognized nor did he get a commendation for his action: just doing his job....
Hetero, in my case, is innate and natural. How about yours?

 

[amicus]

Amicus - Your post intrigues me and I'm pleased you wrote it. I'm still trying to think many things over in my mind and you've given me a lot to ponder.

I appreciate people who make me think and question conventional wisdom.

Thank you.

Erica

~~~

Hello erica, pleased to meet you and thank you for the kind comment.

It is a most unusual time in the history of man, , I think...for what that may be worth.



ami

 

[xssve]

I don't know what's unusual about it, other cultures have taken it to extremes without suffering any particularly negative consequences - the Greek and Roman Empires specifically - both were probably eventually brought down by malaria pandemics completely unrelated to their sexuality.

In fact there is a long history of tolerance to homosexuality in Western culture particularly, it's just been downplayed by Christian historical revisionists, like a lot of other things.

Much of it didn't even become prominent until as late as the Eighteenth century - it isn't "traditional", in any more comprehensive sense of the word, more an artifact of Victorian guilt.

In Britain itself, they eventually concluded that Victorianism was as tedious as Puritanism, and moved on - America is stuck in a time warp in some respects.

Ironically, all of these institutions that stress the sexual moral imperative are essentially oriental and elitist: the whole business of a seperate caste of people with godlike authority is borrowed from the Egyptians.

It has no place in any real traditional Western system, pagan and egalitarian - in fact, it was considered so sketchy, that they assassinated Caesar over it, only for Augustus to use it to overturn the republic anyway.

In it's modern incarnation, it's represented by Calvinist dominion theology - predispensationalism, which posits a godlike "elect" who are above social responsibility, used to justify much more questionable practices than homosexuality within that caste.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Russia's PRAVDA newspaper calls American homosexuals perverts.

 

[amicus]

I think this era is 'unusual' in many ways but the pertinent difference lies within the feminist movement that has fundamentally changed the traditional family structure.

You are looking for a religious skapegoat to tag for things you feign not to understand.

Government subsidies for single mothers has effectively rendered obsolete the male breadwinner and the traditional family structure.

The facts demonstrate that 'liberation' has lessened the true independence of women and shifted the burden to support them and their children to government. Which, for all of you advocating a 'nanny State', is precisely what you have desired.

Enjoy it.

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

I think this era is 'unusual' in many ways but the pertinent difference lies within the feminist movement that has fundamentally changed the traditional family structure.

You are looking for a religious skapegoat to tag for things you feign not to understand.

Government subsidies for single mothers has effectively rendered obsolete the male breadwinner and the traditional family structure.

The facts demonstrate that 'liberation' has lessened the true independence of women and shifted the burden to support them and their children to government. Which, for all of you advocating a 'nanny State', is precisely what you have desired.

Enjoy it.

Amicus

As usual, you offer opinions and no evidence to support your misogynistic bullshit......Take a few hours and educate yourself in the roots of the women's movement......it might take some neural activity on your part....you might have to think for yourself......don't strain too much.....twit

 

[slyc_willie]

Government subsidies for single mothers has effectively rendered obsolete the male breadwinner and the traditional family structure.

Maybe it renders a "traditional" family structure obsolete, but a family in which both partners are even financial contributors, or even with a mainly female breadwinner, can be just as stable as one in which dear old dad was the only one bringing home the bacon, I think.

 

[amicus]

Maybe it renders a "traditional" family structure obsolete, but a family in which both partners are even financial contributors, or even with a mainly female breadwinner, can be just as stable as one in which dear old dad was the only one bringing home the bacon, I think.

~~~

As you present your thought with, an, "I think", I shall do the same. I think the male ego has been savagely minimized and that the pride once gained from supporting a family is long gone.

I know beforehand that this opinion will be compared to Tarzan chest beaters as he roars his dominance over the world, but I maintain that feeling of responsibility is essential to a male's self esteem.

Men and women are different, Slyc, they really are; they gain psychological satisfaction from opposite things, one loves to be strong and independent and a provider and one enjoys being taken care of and complimenting her mate.

It is all very natural and very comfortable when nature is allowed to function as intended.

Ami

 

[slyc_willie]

~~~

As you present your thought with, an, "I think", I shall do the same. I think the male ego has been savagely minimized and that the pride once gained from supporting a family is long gone.

I know beforehand that this opinion will be compared to Tarzan chest beaters as he roars his dominance over the world, but I maintain that feeling of responsibility is essential to a male's self esteem.

Men and women are different, Slyc, they really are; they gain psychological satisfaction from opposite things, one loves to be strong and independent and a provider and one enjoys being taken care of and complimenting her mate.

It is all very natural and very comfortable when nature is allowed to function as intended.

Ami

But why should that be necessarily connected to the man being the principle breadwinner? You're absolutely right about what men and women, for the most part, find pride in. But while I take pride in protecting my daughter and spouse, being the one who makes late-night trips and checks the doors for security, and being the gentleman when the SO and I go out, I don't feel any of that is lessened because she makes more money than I do.

 

[amicus]

]But why should that be necessarily connected to the man being the principle breadwinner? You're absolutely right about what men and women, for the most part, find pride in. But while I take pride in protecting my daughter and spouse, being the one who makes late-night trips and checks the doors for security, and being the gentleman when the SO and I go out, I don't feel any of that is lessened because she makes more money than I do.[/I]

~~~

Never, in any of my musings about the ideal, or the natural order of things, do I say or even imply that everyone should aspire towards the same lifestyle. If it works well for you and yours, that is a good thing.

None of my spouses worked outside the home. They seemed to enjoy caring for children and keeping a house looking as they wanted, and to be truthful, were happiest when I was working the most hours per day.

I am not convinced that men and women should spend that much time together sharing child care or cooking responsibilities. There was a time when the 'home' was the province of the woman, she ruled the roost there and gained pride and self esteem from doing so.

I am fully aware that it is not as simple as I have presented it above; there is a huge difference between the nostalgic past of wood cook stoves, ice boxes, and home grown foods. With the advent of kitchen appliances, the entire task of keeping house was minimalized as the machines took over.

I think modern society has released women from the backbreaking work that was once associated with being a housewife. More so with the public school system, with nurses and psychologists assigned to class rooms and after school activities monitored by teachers. I can well comprehend why perhaps women wanted to do more with their lives than have a cleaning fetish.

I also, over the years, have met dozens of working women who wish they could just remain at home with the children and not be on the treadmill of the workplace.

I don't and never have claimed to have the answers to the tremendous changes that have taken place over the past half century, but I do question some of the results of those changes.

regards...

ami

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

Never, in any of my musings about the ideal, or the natural order of things, do I say or even imply that everyone should aspire towards the same lifestyle. If it works well for you and yours, that is a good thing.

None of my spouses worked outside the home. They seemed to enjoy caring for children and keeping a house looking as they wanted, and to be truthful, were happiest when I was working the most hours per day.

I am not convinced that men and women should spend that much time together sharing child care or cooking responsibilities. There was a time when the 'home' was the province of the woman, she ruled the roost there and gained pride and self esteem from doing so.

I am fully aware that it is not as simple as I have presented it above; there is a huge difference between the nostalgic past of wood cook stoves, ice boxes, and home grown foods. With the advent of kitchen appliances, the entire task of keeping house was minimalized as the machines took over.

I think modern society has released women from the backbreaking work that was once associated with being a housewife. More so with the public school system, with nurses and psychologists assigned to class rooms and after school activities monitored by teachers. I can well comprehend why perhaps women wanted to do more with their lives than have a cleaning fetish.

I also, over the years, have met dozens of working women who wish they could just remain at home with the children and not be on the treadmill of the workplace.

I don't and never have claimed to have the answers to the tremendous changes that have taken place over the past half century, but I do question some of the results of those changes.

regards...

ami

Dude, yer deep! And when I stop laughing at your Stepford analysis of marriage, I'll give you a comprehensive point by point, whoa! Scratch that, it would be a wasted effort.....
"None of my spouses"..........that says a whole helluva lot about you and your 'world view'........
What a piece of work.............

 

[slyc_willie]

I don't and never have claimed to have the answers to the tremendous changes that have taken place over the past half century, but I do question some of the results of those changes.

I figure an equilibrium has arrived. The civil rights movement, the woman's right to vote, et al, have all been good milestones, and they've succeeded where they needed to. Some of the more vocal on both sides of the fence have expressed their views -- often loudly -- overshadowing the basic desires of those who championed the movements.

The fact that all "minorities" and women in the USA have the right to vote is a good thing. That they enjoy every right according to the Constitution is doubly so. And now that those movements have had time to settle and reflect, that sense of balance, of equilibrium, will afford every man and woman the path they chose to take, regardless of prejudice or limitation.

Nothing has been lost, Ami. Just modified.

 

[amicus]

]I figure an equilibrium has arrived. The civil rights movement, the woman's right to vote, et al, have all been good milestones, and they've succeeded where they needed to. Some of the more vocal on both sides of the fence have expressed their views -- often loudly -- overshadowing the basic desires of those who championed the movements.

The fact that all "minorities" and women in the USA have the right to vote is a good thing. That they enjoy every right according to the Constitution is doubly so. And now that those movements have had time to settle and reflect, that sense of balance, of equilibrium, will afford every man and woman the path they chose to take, regardless of prejudice or limitation.

Nothing has been lost, Ami. Just modified[/I].

~~~

This is complicated, slyc_willie, because I wish to keep your respect, yet I cannot offer a mealy mouthed response, especially to the last sentence of your post above.

First off, to redefine, "That all men are created equal...", which implies a Creator, I prefer to accept that the 'nature' of man is to be free and from that, derive that, 'man' means all men and women of all origins and all ethnicities.

I will not apologize for American History, regardless. The discussions and debates that took place throughout the 1760's onward, and even before, considered Women, Native Americans, and Slaves, and could not find a means to reach an agreement other than the one they finally decided upon.

There is a reason, I offer, that nature and evolution made the transition from child to adult, a difficult one. For the child to achieve independence and thus freedom from parental control, there is a gauntlet, a rite of passage to complete, and properly so.

Freedom is not granted, it is fought for and earned. I, as did many, learned that the hard way, along with the cold stark fact that, 'responsibility' is a corollary of being free and independent.

Our cohort on this forum, Cloudy, who claims to be Native American, is an illustration of why freedom cannot be given or granted and also the tragedy of an entire people that could not adapt to the changes that enveloped them.

When the slaves were freed in 1864, many, if not most, sought the managed, controlled existence they had experienced before the Civil War; they were not prepared for freedom, they did not fight for it, nor did they earn it, in essence, it was given to them.

It remains today, that many Native Americans yearn for their Historical place before the white man, as do many current African Americans, yearn for a place that was theirs in History, the history of their people in Africa, from which they were abducted.

It was the politics of the white man, the Europeans that became Americans, that set them free, not their own philosophy or their own actions.

This is an aside, but still, with personal knowledge of Mexican illegals, they are still not free of the Spanish Catholic ties that bind them to dependence both on the Government of Mexico and the Catholic Church.

It is more complex to illustrate the case for, or of, women in the United States, as the emancipation process occurred in urban areas with educated women, while most of America was a rural community that changed very slowly.

The bottom line is that women, in general, did not fight for or gain their freedom, it was granted, or given them, by white men in power.

None of the above points are new, I read them all, in college, forty years ago, nor are they carved in stone, for they are the thoughts and ideas of men and women, striving as we do, to comprehend the times we live in.

If you look with clear eyes, objectively, at the condition of Native Americans on the Reservations and the percentage of alcoholism, drug addiction and the lack of individual responsibility, then your last line rings false as things are not well in the Native American culture of the 21st Century.

Should you make the same perception of the African American community you will find it as dismal, with 75 percent of all children being born to single mothers and an extremely high percentage of young black men in prison and a high percentage of illegal drug involvements.

The effects of the Emancipation of women didn't really begin to take effect until after world war two, because of the Great Depression and the War, which both enabled and restrained women from seeking freedom and independence as a matter of choice; they were left with none, with husbands and fathers not returning.

Many seem to view the dissolution of traditional and conventional family life as as simple, 'modification' of things as they were, I do not.

I do not question that, 'some' women, can work as equal partners in a relationship, with or without children; the evidence is obvious, it works for some.

I do not question that some women can perform at all levels in the workplace, for they have well demonstrated that they can and in many cases even excel.

In short, women, in general, did not fight for nor earn their freedom and independence and quite as the Native Americans and African Americans, have not taken upon themselves the responsibility of freedom and independence.

A majority of women, African Americans and Native Americans are still seeking someone to lead them, someone to tell them what to do, how to live their lives, and they petition the government for help and demand even more when it is given.

Women want a husband to tell them how to live, Native Americans and African Americans want a Tribal Chief to lead them and Hispanics want the comfort of the Church and a Despot to guide their lives.

America, nay, the entire world with the Islamic challenge, where freedom is not even a distant dream, is in peril of returning to a Dark Age of human existence as the sum of the parts yearn for oppression to relieve that agony of freedom.

I will be long dead and cremated before any of this comes to pass, I suppose, but perhaps a lone soul will see their way through my observations and reasoning's and gasp when they see that indeed, what I speak is a possibility.

So, there you are, slyc_willie, a view into a real nutcase or a frightening look that things are not all as well as you seem to think they are.

I remain...

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Blacks were not on holiday at the seashore when the slavers came to Africa. The notion that a small crew of whites docked their boat and kidnapped a few hundred vacationers is absurd.

The slaves were already slaves or prisoners held by the local war-lord. African customs and conventions gave him license to do as he pleased to his slaves and prisoners and other subjects. He could work them or kill them or sell them.

Millions were sold to the Spanish and Portugese, and shipped to the Americas.

And slavery was nuthin new in Europe, it existed when the Euros were trading subprime mortage bundles for the Africans. For all intents and purposes, it was just another day in paradise for everyone.

 

[jomar]

Ami asks "Is, "Hetero", innate and natural?"

The answer is...of course.

And as medical science progresses it looks like it also holds true for homosexuality.

As such, since homosexuality is a subset, but not a choice or a disorder, society then must decide how to address gays, which it is now doing.

I will wager that within ten years middle America will accept the gays already closeted in their conservative churches. In time we'll find something else to gnash our teeth about.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOMAR

As the National President of PERSECUTE FAGS FOR JESUS & LADY LIBERTY, let me say that America has always tolerated, if not embraced gays.

What we object to is how they politicize their itch and demand that the whole community scratch it. They demand Gay Math and Gay Express Lanes at the grocery store. The Child Welfare Department in this state is a gay ghetto...the official spokesman for the agency just went to prison for fucking foster boys.

Enough, already.

Stow the rainbow flags and rainbow underroos for J. Edgar Hoover's birthday.

 

[xssve]

More bullshit, the "zero tolerance" policies of the right wing for normative behaviors that deviate form their neurotically narrow conventions have never accomplished anything, in all of human history except provide incentive for deception and generate genuine psychosis.

True, there is a narrow slice of society that has traditionally quietly gone about the business of living, but it's been drowned out by professional right wing political rabble rousers, that, like it or not, represent and define conservatism as a public institution - you're just complaining about the, entirely predictable, reaction formation.

i.e., you create the situation and then blame somebody else for the predictable result. It definitely smacks of some sort of mental illness at work.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

My organization has almost wiped out cannibalism in America.

 

[xssve]

Look again, you have a piece of moderate republican stuck between your teeth.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Russia's PRAVDA newspaper calls a MODERATE REPUBLICAN 'Someone who answers meekly, OK, when you suggest that America ought to be beneath the boots of Marxists."

 

[jomar]

JOMAR

As the National President of PERSECUTE FAGS FOR JESUS & LADY LIBERTY, let me say that America has always tolerated, if not embraced gays.

What we object to is how they politicize their itch and demand that the whole community scratch it. They demand Gay Math and Gay Express Lanes at the grocery store. The Child Welfare Department in this state is a gay ghetto...the official spokesman for the agency just went to prison for fucking foster boys.

Enough, already.

Stow the rainbow flags and rainbow underroos for J. Edgar Hoover's birthday.

Gays haven't taken to the streets where I live, but I know what you mean.

 

[gloriann]

I wonder if, when suffrage activists and Civil Rights activists and women's rights activists were out there, making headlines, someone said "it is when the 'activists' of the movement, a tiny majority, insist on being viewed as 'mainstream America'. They are not; they are fringe area dissidents that confront conventional and traditional ethics and morals of this particular society."

 

[amicus]

I wonder if, when suffrage activists and Civil Rights activists and women's rights activists were out there, making headlines, someone said "it is when the 'activists' of the movement, a tiny majority, insist on being viewed as 'mainstream America'. They are not; they are fringe area dissidents that confront conventional and traditional ethics and morals of this particular society."

~~~

If you equate Emancipation and Civil Rights with Gay Rights, why, yes, then your point is clear. But only those in the Gay community so view the controversy, the rest identify it for what it is, a fringe area interest group promoting their own case.

Regardless of the hype and hysteria, there are only two recognized genders in the species.

Amicus

 

[gloriann]

I don't really think that anyone argues that there are only two genders... I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is, when the activists of other movements were doing their thing, don't you think Jane and John Doe at home, watching Walter Cronkite or reading the paper said, "Oh, those are just the crazies."

Every group, including straights, has fringe sub-groups, but don't think the people who are out there, putting their reputations, their occupations, and in some cases their physical selves on the line for something they believe in, are necessarily fringe.

You seem like an intelligent woman; could you explain to me why you don't think gays should get married? I'm being completely sincere, here. Please don't refer me to someone else's article (if you read the other thread, you'll know my opinion on that other article.) I want to know the average intelligent person's argument as to why I should not be allowed to marry my girlfriend.