Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Sexual Orientation is an oppressive, anti-man Western concept

Idyllic · 05-12-2010, 09:49 AM

In the times of prehistory heterosexual sex must have obviously been seen as more than just compulsory as populations express and expose the natural inclinations for males to copulate with females.

Prior to understanding the origins of creation in a woman’s body, I would believe that nature itself dictated the arena of heterosexual sex (male penetrating females vaginally), not just for procreation but for enjoyment, as prior to scientific awareness’ birth was merely an action witnessed by humans.

It was when men and women both began to grasp the equality in the creation before them that societies did ensue. Men began to realize their place as creator of life along side WITH women and that part of their blood flowed within the blood of a child, their child, their offspring, their immortality, and man liked to know that power was his also, the power of creating life.

What man did not like, was not knowing, IF HE was truly the father, the owner of the child, so man took woman and “married” her to himself to insure his heritage, his immortality.

The separation of men from women was a necessity in times before man found other ways of proving his biological offspring. In the beginning the honeymoon was created as a way for men to insure he inseminated a woman, the couple would depart the tribe for a full moon cycle, in which time no man was permitted around them (especially the female), so it would be proven he fathered the child, a “moons cycle with your honey.”

This was before man “took” freedom from woman, this was when man respected the ability of women to prevent insemination from another. But then other men saw the love between men and women and used that love as a weakness, to destroy neighboring communities, warring tribes would copulate with their women, by using the physical/muscular weakness of women against other men and against women themselves.

As man began to acknowledge the “physical/muscular” weakness of woman he also realized the ease at which another man could penetrate his “now” incubator and sought even more to prevent his oven from baking another mans biscuits, so woman was placed behind walls, placed behind curtains, “protected” so she could not be harmed by the men who would use her (for our own protection at the time, and it was necessary to be protected THEN).

And more and more after time women became viewed as possessions for their inherent ability to provide male offspring for immortality (the child will take the mans surname) and female offspring’s for bartering and developing a grander society by marriages all leading back to the tribal leader who typically possessed the most women.

Men created the divide, men perpetuated the divide, and now NM you deem yourself right to continue it, just under a different disguise, but in your scenario you use effeminacy as your weapon of choice and you divide by character not by masculinity, but by fear and ignorance…..

You attempt to put anything effeminate, including women back behind the wall, back behind the curtains, and effeminate men, especially “gay” men back into the closet, for your own satisfaction not societies, for as you see in the progressive west, we have and will, continue to move beyond not only the gender barrier itself, but the barrier of intrinsic masculine/effeminate characteristics that make up our personalities, but DO NOT define our gender or our sexual inclinations.

The “warriors” you describe, the trials men faced, they were for the armies, for the soldiers who HAD to prove physical strength to protect their villages, it had nothing to do with manhood and everything to do with brute strength and the ability to defeat the challenger to PROTECT the village and especially PROTECT the women, the women who carried mans’ immortality…..

The men tested their strength so they could insure the strongest would fight FIRST, the men who did not posses the same physical brute strength still had great purpose, they stayed in the villages to protect the women and children, they were the last barriers and they would die protecting the woman, just as the proven warriors would.

The men who did not show the same strength as the warriors still married and loved also, and they loved too, the strongest of men because those men lead the fight and gave their lives so readily for not only the women but the men of lesser muscular ability, the society as a whole understood the importance of each individual. Just as we should today!

Stop taking history and skewing to suit your bigoted perceptions of reality, your simply wrong, it appears obvious to me you are incorrect because YOUR argument perpetuates stereotypical division of humans, and any division of the human race is inherently unprogressive, it is when people mix and mingle and remove hypocrisy that society is able to grow and flourish, I do believe history and the development of advanced societies proves my case.

(for all you out there who immediately think I am talking about AE…. I’m not, I find other countries and cultures to be just as advanced if not more so in certain arenas, so don’t start taking this thread into “I’m so proud” because I’m just not “that” full of myself)

05-12-2010, 09:49 AM	#105 (permalink)
Idyllic Psycho Location: My House	In the times of prehistory heterosexual sex must have obviously been seen as more than just compulsory as populations express and expose the natural inclinations for males to copulate with females. Prior to understanding the origins of creation in a woman’s body, I would believe that nature itself dictated the arena of heterosexual sex (male penetrating females vaginally), not just for procreation but for enjoyment, as prior to scientific awareness’ birth was merely an action witnessed by humans. It was when men and women both began to grasp the equality in the creation before them that societies did ensue. Men began to realize their place as creator of life along side WITH women and that part of their blood flowed within the blood of a child, their child, their offspring, their immortality, and man liked to know that power was his also, the power of creating life. What man did not like, was not knowing, IF HE was truly the father, the owner of the child, so man took woman and “married” her to himself to insure his heritage, his immortality. The separation of men from women was a necessity in times before man found other ways of proving his biological offspring. In the beginning the honeymoon was created as a way for men to insure he inseminated a woman, the couple would depart the tribe for a full moon cycle, in which time no man was permitted around them (especially the female), so it would be proven he fathered the child, a “moons cycle with your honey.” This was before man “took” freedom from woman, this was when man respected the ability of women to prevent insemination from another. But then other men saw the love between men and women and used that love as a weakness, to destroy neighboring communities, warring tribes would copulate with their women, by using the physical/muscular weakness of women against other men and against women themselves. As man began to acknowledge the “physical/muscular” weakness of woman he also realized the ease at which another man could penetrate his “now” incubator and sought even more to prevent his oven from baking another mans biscuits, so woman was placed behind walls, placed behind curtains, “protected” so she could not be harmed by the men who would use her (for our own protection at the time, and it was necessary to be protected THEN). And more and more after time women became viewed as possessions for their inherent ability to provide male offspring for immortality (the child will take the mans surname) and female offspring’s for bartering and developing a grander society by marriages all leading back to the tribal leader who typically possessed the most women. Men created the divide, men perpetuated the divide, and now NM you deem yourself right to continue it, just under a different disguise, but in your scenario you use effeminacy as your weapon of choice and you divide by character not by masculinity, but by fear and ignorance….. You attempt to put anything effeminate, including women back behind the wall, back behind the curtains, and effeminate men, especially “gay” men back into the closet, for your own satisfaction not societies, for as you see in the progressive west, we have and will, continue to move beyond not only the gender barrier itself, but the barrier of intrinsic masculine/effeminate characteristics that make up our personalities, but DO NOT define our gender or our sexual inclinations. The “warriors” you describe, the trials men faced, they were for the armies, for the soldiers who HAD to prove physical strength to protect their villages, it had nothing to do with manhood and everything to do with brute strength and the ability to defeat the challenger to PROTECT the village and especially PROTECT the women, the women who carried mans’ immortality….. The men tested their strength so they could insure the strongest would fight FIRST, the men who did not posses the same physical brute strength still had great purpose, they stayed in the villages to protect the women and children, they were the last barriers and they would die protecting the woman, just as the proven warriors would. The men who did not show the same strength as the warriors still married and loved also, and they loved too, the strongest of men because those men lead the fight and gave their lives so readily for not only the women but the men of lesser muscular ability, the society as a whole understood the importance of each individual. Just as we should today! Stop taking history and skewing to suit your bigoted perceptions of reality, your simply wrong, it appears obvious to me you are incorrect because YOUR argument perpetuates stereotypical division of humans, and any division of the human race is inherently unprogressive, it is when people mix and mingle and remove hypocrisy that society is able to grow and flourish, I do believe history and the development of advanced societies proves my case. (for all you out there who immediately think I am talking about AE…. I’m not, I find other countries and cultures to be just as advanced if not more so in certain arenas, so don’t start taking this thread into “I’m so proud” because I’m just not “that” full of myself) __________________ you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.