We are taught that heterosexuality is normal and natural, that the God spoken about in religious books is the real God, and that our material way of life is something to be cherished. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, these three 'inventions' (heterosexuality, religion and materialism) are inextricably linked; the one serving as the handmaiden to the other.
This paper is concerned with natural facts. If one divided all the world's disciplines up into just three headings, they would be Science, Philosophy and Religion (ordered in decreasing validity of truth.) Science deals with Nature's facts, Religion deals with Humankind's beliefs (or more correctly, hopes), while Philosophy comes somewhere between the two, dealing with Humankind's opinions. Whilst Philosophy and Religion seek evidence to support a theory (mainly biased theories), Science by contrast takes facts and then builds a theory. This paper is thus no private rocking horse in search of a theory to suit any biases. I deal with natural fact.
Using several disciplines to investigate the inventions of heterosexuality, religion and materialism, not only exposes them as mere inventions, but ensures that the research is reliable since the methodology is persistently comparative. When one discipline says exactly the same thing as another, over and over again, there can be no room for doubt. Apart from comparative study, scientific fact (nature), persistent patterns over time (history) and pure logic are utilised. Indeed the author compares Mythology, Archeo-Anthropology and Sexology/Ethology; which fit the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together in order o overcome speculation. The primary objective of this paper is to dig and dig and dig, and then tell. I call it 'Dig and Tell'. Let's begin:
The earliest mythologies do not reflect a heterosexual myth. Archaeology and anthropology also show that heterosexuality had not been invented by prehistoric humans. Ethology (animal behaviour) shows that the animal kingdom we emerged from (particularly the primates), also have no heterosexual invention. Using history and nature (our only true teachers), to study both biology (body) and psychology (mind) in the realm of Sexology, not only show that heterosexuality was not designed by nature, but that male-female relationships are fraught with problems (in both biology and psychology). Logic also dictates a great amount to what nature could or could not have designed, and the reasons why. None of which have to be made subject to Occam's razor (although they would more than stand the test); and all of which persist without deviation over time (history) and are plainly and directly observable (nature).
In the end analysis we find that the human species displays the most extreme differences between the sexes, where same sex bonds and sexual acts are found to be more comfortable than opposite sex one's. We find that nature really does not care, as long as DNA (each species) survives. For this it provides the 'male excess', which knows no direction (there is no guiding instinct to guide one sex to another), but ensures that procreation takes place by mere fluke ie: enough of the average of the seed 'spilt' will find its way into procreating in all species.
At the hands of a few clever men (religio-politicians) the whole of nature is changed to suit their noxious pursuit of ego, power, self-aggrandisement, and ultimately greed (materialism). To ensure that these goals are reached, they encourage the human species to over-breed, thus supplying the masses for such a politico-economic activity. To ensure that humans over-breed (an unnatural act when one considers the limit of food resources alone), and realising that man's laws will not be efficient; the laws are made to appear as the 'word' of 'God'. To then ensure that one obeys 'God's word', the eternal fears of death, God's existence, and an afterlife, are heavily played upon; thus ensuring that the masses, albeit unhappily at every turn, play right into the hands of the power-monger.
In this Universe, in reality, no-one knows who or what God is, what form God would take, or if God even exists at all. Most certainly God has never been revealed to us, nor is religion based on God, Truth or any real sense of Spirituality. Aliens on another planet might say God is green and has seven fingers, and who's to say it/he/she is not. In a vast evolution that is different in every part of the Universe, that there is no sexual orientation in our evolution, is of no concern to evolution. Indeed there is not any need of sexual orientation, as long as there is the right amount of procreation (so as not to overeat one's food sources and die out). And that's all that matters. Hence the 'male excess'. Therefore nature does not care if its 'trail and error' process of natural selection sees certain sexes get along better than others (and imagine the problems on other planets where there may be four or five sexes required for the procreational act); just as long as the 'right amount' of procreation is guaranteed. And this balance is seen at every level from the smallest living cell to the largest animal. It's only a few power-hungry humans who have altered both the natural sexual picture, and any natural spirituality we could have had.
We know hardly anything about the Universe at all, and those that insist we do, have merely fallen into the very trap the power-monger has set. Yet in it all, one factor we know a great deal about (and religious heterosexuals try to repress this), is that the material reward the power-monger gives to the masses in the hope that it is somewhat of a replacement for the bliss they miss out on; really enriches the power-mongers' materialism at the end of they day. However materialism does not ultimately bring happiness to either the masses, nor the greed-monger . It is clear then that the so-called noble aim of 'civilisation' that the laws are 'the way they are' because it is 'for the good of all' due to the 'human condition'; is in reality, and in the end, only 'for the good of a select few', who have themselves created the so-called 'human condition'.
One can believe ('hope'), express opinions, and ignore all the facts one wants to; however at the end of the day, the above facts remain indisputable. And the saddest fact of all, is that religio-hetero-materialism has left nothing but a wake of destruction in history, where neither its followers, nor its propagandists, have ever found God, nor any happy relationships amongst themselves, nor with the environment. One thing is sure. If there is a God, and after the course of human folly I hope that there is; then it is certain that God's only law is nature's law, not man's. We have flown in the face of nature, acting unnaturally. And in the face of God, without any spirituality. And whilst not flowing 'in the spirit of the thing', not even materialism has helped us achieve bliss that we have lost along the way.
A final and devastating fact that the religio-hetero-materialist tries to avoid at all costs, is that their myth has never worked. If it had, none of us would be in near the sorry state we are in today. For them I hope there is an afterlife where they will find at least some bliss, but above all forgiveness for what they have done to God, each other, and the entire planet. How sad it would be for them to have led an unhappy existence, only to find out there maybe isn't an afterlife. What a waste ! "O' God of All Nature, guide the religio-hetero-materialist, that they learn not to perpetuate the unnatural lies on young impressionable minds, and might stop harming 'the Good, the Beauty and the Truth' (Plato) ... and above all ... Love !"
Twenty years ago I began a search to find out why homosexuality occurred. This I pursued, as would most, against the background that heterosexuality was 'natural'. During this mission, thinking I had to be a committed 'Christian', I also looked for ways in which to excuse homosexuality from the 'sin' cast on it by the bible. And all the while, I could not help noticing that the world had something very wrong with it.
It took me some time to cut through the rhetoric of my professors and the priests I knew, and slowly but surely, I came across some startling facts. However, to date, I had not found anyone who had linked them together, nor in the proper chronological order. Thus began my work entitled "Sex, God & Money".
What was it that I found out along the way ?
First and foremost, I found that heterosexuality was not at all natural. Indeed, from general archeo-anthropology I found that prehistoric humans had no long term monogamous relationships at all. Furthermore, the first male-female relationships were only economic in nature ('division of labour'), and only developed once man invented tools (they are today still materialistic). Here, the male (hunter) swopped the meat he hunted, for grubs and vegetables gathered by the female (gatherer) [World Prehistory by Graham Clarke].
(By the way, the above is a good argument for vegetarians too)
Although males and females copulated obviously back then, heterosexuality per se was only invented late in our four and a half millions years of human evolution. Homosexuality though, hardly had to be invented, it was a natural occurrence.
Some heterosexual anthropological protagonists would have us believe that heterosexuality was first invented by a few men in a handful of millions of tribes at the time. Rather dim-witted men, who felt the species was threatened in times of disease and war. We know these were erroneous fears though, because 100% homosexual tribes like the Siwans et al. (read Ford & Beech) have high fertility rates (of course these tribes have male-female sex, but their bonding is 100% homosexual - one must not confuse 'sex' and 'bonding' - as we shall see when we come to define heterosexuality later on). If this is so, and we have no arti-FACT to say it was, then such men could be forgiven for their erroneous fears. However I am more of the opinion that their reasons were a great deal more noxious. For instance we hear Rowse state that Old Testament Jews, being a nomadic race, who suffered extreme losses in history, were naturally hard put to keep up their numbers during wars back then, hence the rise of the harsh laws of Leviticus, and the invention of such myths as Sodom. Again, Rowse has cleverly glissed right over the fact that the Old Testament Jews also wanted to increase their numbers for political reasons, over and above the one's he suggests. [Homosexuals in History by A.L.Rowse]
At the hands of a far more noxious group, other than the nomadic tribes, came even more hideously noxious aims. This group consisted of none other than the religio-politicians.
Whereas the primal myths reflected nature as it was (still is), with a male god mirroring himself, or masturbating, in order to create a people; the religio-politician borrowed these myths but changed the content. Suddenly each God has a female partner: Indeed the bisexual-homosexual-homosocial Epic of Gilgamesh, became the Adam & Eve myth - suddenly a purely heterosexual one - retaining only the 'garden of Eden'. [Gods & Men by Bailey : Jonathan Loved David by Tom Horner]
But why did the religio-politician change the natural myths ?
The answer is ... simple economics. The greater the breeding, the greater the mass. And the greater the mass, the more greed's pocket could be fulfilled (cheaper labour force, more to fight wars etc.); and thus the religio-politician's real aims would be achieved, viz: ego, power, wealth and self-aggrandisement. No doubt, with the rise of farming (and land ownership) came the possibility of breeding even more than ever before (more food availability, more people can be bred). And it did not matter that man's laws overcame nature's. It did not matter to man that he would deplete his natural resources, as long as greed's pocket would be filled.
We know as an indisputable fact that heterosexuality does not exist in the animal kingdom, only male-female coition does (and then only briefly in the mating season, and then even that is not guaranteed, for the 'smell' is so non-guiding that it also encourages homosexual acts) [River Out Of Eden by Richard Dawkins : Corydon by Andre Gide].
Now that the Pontifical Academy has accepted evolution, we can now draw direct comparisons with the very animals from which we emerged, and accept these comparisons for what they are. So, like it or not, we are like the very animals we emerged from, and will always be ... and there is on these grounds alone, no heterosexuality in reality. Yet we keep the myth alive that heterosexuality is a real and natural phenomenon ... it isn't even neumenon. [Supernatural A-Z by James Randi]. To top it all, we find that our closest living relatives, the bonobos chimpanzees, engage in all sexual behaviours, that would make "Sodom & Gomorra look like a Vicar's tea party" [The Prehistory of Sex by Timothy Taylor]. Part of religion's quest to separate us from the animals (as somewhere 'between them and God'), is but a ploy to cover up and hide our sexual variation, which is not just limited to homosexuality.
With the rapid development of science, the heterosexual propagandist who looked to the animals to try and find some sort of heterosexuality in our humans terms, had their hopes dashed. Males fight not over females, but rather to see the best genes win out in their offspring. So-called harem keeping animals protect their territory for food sources and a host of other reasons, not because they are 'lovers'. And in that handful of a few species (mainly birds) that they wished 'paired' or 'mated for life'; they only seemed to do this in those few animals where the female was marked so much like the male that she became an easy target for predators. It is thus a mere protection mechanism. The cherry on the cake came though when scientists found recently found in the bird species that the DNA of the eggs in the nest very seldom matched the DNA of the male. In sum, the male of the handful of so-called 'pairing' species is food gatherer, protector, mid-wife and hunter. Everything but 'lover'. [River Out of Eden etc.]
But then I came across the most startling fact of all.
There is no sexual instinct to guide male to female in animals or humans. [The Homosexual Matrix by Dr. C.A. Tripp]. And this most incredibly startling fact, is not only accepted by all scientists, it is now just beginning to emerge for the masses due to the internet. We love in exciting times, for this fact alone exposes the heterosexual myth for once and for all time.
Here already the reader can see that by investigating one discipline (in this case sexology and ethology), the facts of another (archeo-anthropology and mythology as examined above) are confirmed ... again and again. Such is the nature of comparative studies.
Observers notice the fact that young boys have no interest in girls, and even during their first sexual urgings, they are not selectively directed to them either. But what one fails to notice is that this continues right throughout life, hence what is termed the 'eternal male bond'. This does not say much for the propaganda that young boys are not interested in girls as a result of their being sexually immature (a common myth portrayed by at least a few 'academics'). Sexology of course tells us otherwise. But then science usually has no place for opinion anyway.
The same applies to animals. As observed in young males of all primate species, they have to be taught to direct their urges towards females, and even then it remains constantly difficult to engage in sexual acts. The same applies to the animal kingdom in general. In fact, so lacking is nature of heterosexuality, that it has to naturally select a mating season, just in order that male-female coition takes place. And that mating season, nature forgot for human (a great fear of the religio-politician of course).
The question that always arises at this point when humans come across this indisputable fact (no guiding instinct), is how did humans survive (ie: not die out).
The answer is simple, the 'male excess'.
Darwin noticed that the wind carries thousands of pollen (male) particles, just so that a few chance grains would land on the ovule (female) by mere chance. This excess is seen in the abundance of semen in human and animal males. Thus, Nature in its 'trial and error' process of 'natural selection' ensures procreation by sheer chance ... mere fluke [Corydon by Andre Gide]. There is thus order within the chaos [Bohm]. Moreover, sex only occurs because it is pleasurable. Neither animal nor primal man has/had any knowledge that sex can lead to procreation. Even in latter day primitive societies we find rituals of for instance, women gathered around fires with the scattering of ochre in the flames, in the hope that they will fall pregnant. Thus, because sex only occurs due to it being pleasurable, the 'spilling of the seed' in the male excess, ensures the right amount of procreation.
In the animal kingdom, the mating season helps this guarantee by introducing the 'smell'. But there are two things we forget here. Firstly, the mating season is short, which means male-female coition is brief (and certainly their is no heterosexuality). In humans, nature forgot the mating season entirely. Secondly, the 'smell' of the rut is so non-guiding, that it even encourages homosexual acts when male-female coition is desired (remember, there is no guiding instinct) [Gide].
There can be thus only one thing that ensure procreation ... the 'male excess'.
It was then that I realised what a threat homosexuality must be in the minds of the simpleton, the sheep and the propagandist ... the religio-politician. We have already seen that the most homosexual societies have the highest fertility rates, so homosexuality cannot be a threat to nature (human survival). But it is a threat to the religio-politician, who against all nature, wishes the species to over-populate (remember, the greater the mass, the greater the wealth). He wants to see the excess spent only on females, and hence more breeding.
So this was why the bible told us not to spill the seed. Not in masturbation, nor homosexuality (nor in recreational male-female sex, nor in pornography for that matter). No wonder so many sexual acts were condemned. Indeed the 'seed' is 'god's' sperm 'bank'; and it can be used to fill the greedy pockets of the theocrat and their associates ... the state (empire, king, pharaoh etc.).
Today, the reasons most people offer against homosexuality depict the fears that the human species might die out, or that the bible says it is sinful. Of course we know there is no survival threat at all, and certainly God never said anything of the like. In fact God has never been revealed to anyone. And in sum, when one examines it, what could really be wrong with homosexuality at all. It is merely part and parcel of the 'male excess' and in a natural setting where there are no religio-political laws (or supposed 'gay' and 'straight' gene) to guide sexual orientation, male-female coition would also take place as yet another alternative within the spilling (or in this case, capturing) of the seeds of the 'male excess'.
Indeed, in nature, maybe male-female coition is more the alternative than is homosexuality.
The only thing in it all that is 'wrong' or unnatural, is heterosexuality. If we define heterosexuality as it is known and accepted, then we say it is "a long term monogamous male-female bonding that can have recreational sex if it so chooses".
Well the plain and indisputable fact is that heterosexual recreational (sporting) sex cannot be natural, for it would lead to procreation. To thus achieve recreation, it must employ unnatural devices like contraception, hardly a natural device. "If heterosexuality was natural, condoms would grow on trees". [The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz]. "Rigid heterosexuality is a perversion" - Margaret Mead.
Moreover, one misses the fact that women in late pregnancy, or during menstruation, or who are child rearing, are hardly constantly available sex partners (or shall I say sex objects). It is thus logically clear that male and female were meant to procreate, but that's it. Once the job is done, their purposed is over. Hence the brief mating season, and hence the fact that nature does not care if human males and females are created so differently that they cannot happily live together forevermore.
It was at this point that I then discovered some other alarming facts : "If male was 'made' for female, then they would have been 'made' much more alike, both biologically and psychologically." - Vern Bullough, socio-biologist.
I found that the male is innately spacial and numerical, an athlete who seeks architectural form (Polyclitus) and a roamer who cannot be tied down. In all species he is the beautiful one (efflorescence) and he will always seek male company, even in the most heterosexually indoctrinated societies. This homosociality is known as the 'eternal male bond' and is seen in the pub, on the sports field, at meeting, and everywhere else. The way he was created also sees him enjoying sex as inserter and insertee, something that a woman cannot give him. [Tripp] If he is forced to cohabit with women (an unnatural tie for their is no mirror or reciprocity) he will then commit what is known as 'the eternal charges against women'. [Tripp]. These charges can be devastating ranging from his dislike of the vulva to platitudes like "can't live with them, can't live without them" (if only he knew). Some of these statement have been taken to the extreme, which must show that his pathological fetish with the vulva (anyone can be stimulated by any 'disgusting' thing when aroused, for instance coprophilia, S&M; etc. etc. ad nausea.) is but a mere pathology, for deep down he does indeed dislike it. In Peru statues dating back to 500 BC depict a penis holding its own nose when about to enter the vagina. There is also that famous depiction in the literature of 'even the devil taking flight form the vulva'. In psychoanalytic case histories there is a plethora of common motifs of women themselves expressing disgust at their own vagina's; and dreams about the 'bloody monster'. Please note that the author is no misogynist, and understands that women would not express 'disgust' at one another. This 'disgust' is merely as the man sees it. Those women who have seen it as 'disgusting' have done so due to the socialised comparison with other body parts that are different to the vagina. One must also understand that most women view the penis with equal disgust. Apart from the biological problems men must face with women, on a psychological level he has to face still more. Whereas in biology he has to resort to a pathological fetishism to put up with the vulva, mentally he has to juggle his psyche and try to adjust to the woman's brain (which is impossible). Katz calls this 'psychical hermaphroditism'. These aspects alone prove that there cannot be a 'straight gene' for there is not a single honest account of any man ever having been fully satisfied by a woman in any time period. There is thus no need for a 'gay gene' either, if at the deepest biological and psychological levels already, all men have distinct problems with women. If biology and psychology at the hands of evolution already make male and female mis-mated, what need is there for us to seek a gay or straight gene. All men are already at odds with women, so what need is there for such genes. [Please note that what is said of men, can be said of women too, and vice versa]. If women themselves already express disgust with their own vagina's, why would men (who have no such genitals) identify with it, or thus even like it as much as they pathologically pretend. Would the eating of excrement be valued as a 'beautiful thing to do' if it were not for some pathological socialisation ? Indeed, not. And what amount of socialisation could possibly tell the male nose to perceive the vagina's smell as in any way attractive ? In sum, such are the charges made by heterosexual males who are enforced to cohabit with the female in an enclosed lifestyle, without any alternative sexual activity to balance his desires. How sorry one has to feel for the poor womenfolk that have to endure being treated in this way, like "dogs" (a common expression amongst male heterosexuals). If this all point to one thing alone, male and female were meant to procreate briefly, for any long-term relationship has throughout history brought nothing but the 'eternal charges against women'. Tripp points out that the dictionary has more negative descriptions for women, than any other word. All religions, have also admitted these charges, but have tried to help the male try and overcome them. Why ?
The female by contrast is designed as child bearer and child rearer. Whilst protein is converted into muscle in the male, in the female it is converted to fat (read about the 'fat' Venus statues which some try to suggest were seen as somehow beautiful because the culture at the time enjoyed such 'art' forms sic - as evidenced above, they could only have been fertility symbols - hence we see no love objects from primal times). And even if we were to argue that they could have been seen as love objects due to a change in fashionable thinking, why then could the male body not have been seen as beautiful too ? Moreover, whether one wishes to follow Polyclitus's 'forms' or merely look to nature, that which is most sought after in the sense of 'beauty' is that which carries the genes, that which is most fit, agile, lithe and 'formed' (architecturally). Gide mentions the difference between anagenic and catagenic processes in the male and female, and whatever objective ascription we ascribe to beauty must finally rest with what is in perfect harmony with all that is motion. For all that is at rest, retards into a mass that can hardly be seen to be as beautiful as we have been led to believe. The male is thus blessed with motion and its beauty, whereas the female is cast with wider hips, sagging bosoms (some try to improve this with cups etc.) and a vagina which de Guyon called "the most chronic aberration of nature". It is merely the face and the nude flesh which can attract the male, yet same can attract him to a male rather than a female. When he examines the female down below, or without her make-up (she tries to imitate the efflorescence of the animal males) or fancy costume; the entire illusion is shattered. Indeed, all the nudes of Greece always showed the male fully nude, while the female was always draped. One recall the words of da Vinci "The act of human coition is so ugly, that if it were not for the beauty of faces, the species would cease to proliferate." To try and make men unattractive to other men, as Gide says, they are kept as grubs, ordinary so as to blend into the background; while women adorn themselves like the (male) peacock in the hope that they will hide what is so unseemly below. So ... the female is the less athletic and her form less beautiful, as nature only cares that she must carry children (which is why male heterosexuals divorce so easily, so that they can find women with more slender hips once oestrogen swells that of their spouse. Of course in such societies, males do not know that they have the alternative of young men, who have no such problem). She is intuitive and verbal, the latter skill being used to nurture children (which is why males are not naturally attracted to babies nor their babbling). She is a nest builder and is content with female company. And as if poor womenfolk don't find each other attractive; as if they do not also have their charges against men.
There are countless other biological and psychological differences, not the least of which, is that males reach their sexual peak at 17, whilst females only do so in their late twenties. Moreover, the two have vastly diverging interests in life as a result of their differing psyche's. The propagandist who tries to uphold that they can form a union psychologically slyly forgets to tell his audience that in reality the one has to make compromises for the other's interests. On a biological level they also cannot mirror each other, the male does not have the slightest idea where the several 'g-spots' are located in the female, yet other females know. And even when shown these spots, neither sex can fully stimulate the others' g-spots correctly, and even if they did, the one would never be able to know what the other is feeling. Clearly, the same sexes were meant for recreational sex (it is not possible naturally in the opposite sexes), and clearly the opposite sexes were meant only for brief procreation. All else beyond that, particularly bonding, was not meant for the opposite sexes. Hence the 'eternal male bond' and the 'eternal charges against women'. Hence the vast differences in biology and psychology.
Even the human invention of love (although one can love any person, animal or thing) can only mean 'warmth', 'security' and 'bonding'. Yet the biological and psychological 'mirrors' simply are not there for the opposite sexes, and never the twain shall meet. How often has one heard a woman saying "Men will never understand women, and women will never understand men". How often has the gay male heard from a married man "That was the best orgasm I've ever had" (probably a reason why heterosexual women have 'penis envy')
These are not my opinions, but merely natural and historically persistent facts. Indeed "some of my best friends are heterosexual" (and how sympathetic and admiring I am of their braveness). While some would 'wish' the situation to be different, it nature and in primal times, there simply is/was no heterosexuality. And there's not a thing one can do about. Nor is it necessary that anything is done about. For all nature in both the animals kingdom and in primal humans, survived without it.
As a species, the human is the most mis-mated, showing great sexual dimorphism, and the most extreme sex differences of any species. But then again, where in nature does it remotely suggest that the two should cohabit with each other on a permanent basis in our heterosexual terms. Male and female were designed to procreate ... and that's it. Nature does not care a bit that they are not compatible beyond that (the splitting of the single cell; 'The Fall'). As long as DNA survives, that's all that matters. "DNA just is, and we dance to its music" [Dawkins]. The 'Fall' of the bible is more akin to the difference between the sexes than any other myth-making.
There is thus no 'gay' gene or 'straight' gene. For as we have seen, there is no need for one. Sexual orientation simply just does not exist in nature. Why should it if the male excess is in place ? It is only invented in latter-day societies, and then, it will take on the form dictated by the culture at hand. The most religiously-political societies will encourage heterosexuality, whereas those with a respect for nature (and hence survival eg: not depleting their resources) will procreate when necessary, but never over-breeding. In the Siwans the sexual bonding (they still have male-female coition) is 100% homosexual. One would hardly say a 'gay' gene was responsible in them, now would one ? The 'gay gene' I nothing but a political tool on both sides. The homosexual wants to defend his roots in nature (as if homosexuality could have sprung elsewhere other than nature); and the heterosexual wants to be able to manipulate the 'gene' in future genetic engineering, so that he can 'right the situation', so that there will not be any homosexuality. Of course such futile thinking is as ridiculous as the advent of unisexuality in the hope that it would have rid gender roles. What such 'academics' gliss right over is the fact that they are confusing socialised genders with biological ones. But then there are the new wave of scientists who are trying hard to suggest that there is a biological basis for homosexuality. They are of the mind that homosexuals are evolved via natural selection to take car of the offspring ... sort of midwives if you please. Note how yet again the biological role is confused with the socialised role, which stinks here of the effeminate stereotype. Tripp points out in this regards that effeminacy is seen in both gays and 'straights'. Moreover when they were injected with hormones to change their effeminacy, they all became even more effeminate. And anyway, if natural selection created a gay gene, then it must have created a straight gene too. If it created a straight gene, it did not work very well, because the 'eternal charges against women' and the 'eternal male bond' have never been broken by any such gene. Moreover, if a gay gene was created in the suggested 10% of the population to curb over-population, this would hardly work in reality. For it would imply that 90% of the population would have more heterosexual tendencies. However, even if only 1% of the population had a 'straight' gene, due to the snowballing effect of procreation, we could still suffer procreation. It is far more logical that the 'male excess' takes care of procreation, and that 100% of the population only perform same when required. Hence the perfect parallel in the animal kingdom. And hence, nature has already created male and female so differently, that this alone takes care of the over-population problem. There is thus no need for a gay or straight gene. The bonobos chimps, our closest living ancestors, are a clear example of this, for they engage in all sorts of sexual behaviours, which are not limited to one particular group. Humans, like Freud, clearly have sex on their minds ... literally !
If there was a 'straight gene' then why is that in countless past millennia we find artefacts such as women using ochre as cosmetics, and pieces of polished obsidian to act as mirror when the make-up was applied. For what reason would these women have had to resort to make-up (as if to colour themselves to match the efflorescence of male animals) if heterosexuality was innate ? Was this not the first invention of heterosexuality ? And indeed, it there heterosexuality was innate (nature) and not socialised (nurture), why is that that it has to be enforced at every level of a child's learning process ? Do the psychologists and biologist not agree that all behaviour is learned ? Read Katz and Taylor for a more detailed reason as to why the gay gene is logically impossible.
Of course the burning question is, why would a man hate another man's penis, if he has one himself ... and which he adores ... and on top of which, women do not adore.
In sum then: In homosexual acts, recreational sex is perfectly natural. It is part of the male excess, and it is obviously encouraged further by the mirroring, art-form and reciprocity that has led to the 'eternal male bond'. It is only in heterosexually indoctrinated societies that homosexuality is minimal. It would not be in the natural setting. There it would be prevalent (especially in humans who are the most different sexually of all species). In heterosexuality, recreational sex is not natural at all, nor can it ever hope to be. The only thing that is natural for males and females, is procreational coition; and anything enforced beyond that, leads to the 'eternal charges against women'. Those are the natural and persistent facts over time.
Nature simply does not care, as long as DNA survives.
It is also quite evident from nature that it has its own reasons for why it evolved the sexes the way it did. There is a perfect bisexual balance, and a homosocial bias, which sees to it that over-population does not take place. Heterosexual propagandists and religionists alike, can try as hard as they want to enforce their untruths, however over-population is unnatural. For example, say 40 species of animals lived on an island with only so many food resources. If there was over-population, the food sources would all be eaten, and the species would all die out very quickly. Heterosexuals therefore do not realise the dangers of their religious books ('marry and multiply), nor do they give such obvious problems more than the time of day. Talk about indoctrination. Talk about 'goodness' !
The underlying mechanisms of this balance are obviously the reason why the prostatic orgasm is the most pleasurable of all orgasms in humans (no-one has yet denied this by the way). It is also obviously the reason why all male and females dream mainly about males. Or why the male and female both want to suck the phallice in the oral phase or admire it in the phallic stage (a long kept secret). Or why the male enjoys the anal phase (he is looking for that highest of pleasures, the prostatic massage) ... hence the term 'anal retentive' for male heterosexuals. Freud at least could not hide too much from us though, for he finally admitted that "all men are latent, repressed or overt homosexuals".
It is clear that nature has thus designed all females to seek males at least briefly, and that all males were designed to admire the male form much more of the time (check those at the gym next time). If this weren't so, neither the eternal male bond, nor the eternal charges against women would have persisted over time. It is also clear that male-female contacts should be brief, lest over-population occur.
And it is these factors, a balance, that curbs over-population. It males were designed to be insatiably attracted to females all of the time, mating seasons would be longer, and nature would not have forgotten a mating season for humans. Hence too the biological and psychological differences to keep male and females apart, most of the time. Being at the top of the evolutionary ladder, natural selection must have known 'things could have gotten out of hand'.
How many myths we still have to overcome. For instance: Research shows that females are not at all drawn to strong arms and legs, nor is it logically possible for them to do anything with the male buttocks they so desire. Females also do not have a penis with which to pummel the prostate with any effect, hence she cannot give a man the most pleasurable of all orgasms. The question then begs asking, if a female cannot give these things to a man, or admire them in a man, then who can?
Such are the biological and psychological differences nature has 'wrought' (for some).
So nature ensures perfect balance by creating huge differences between the sexes, and reciprocity between the same sexes; hence their is no over-population, hence a species survives. Yet it briefly allows a coming together of male and female, but makes no bones about it, it had not given them much else to enjoy beyond that.
One can read Heraclitus to see that opposites combine most briefly, but most of the time they clash; at every level from atom (microcosm) to supernova (macrocosm). These clashes are thus necessary, and throughout the entire Universe, in order that there is movement, 'change', or what Heraclitus called 'flux' ('fire). Hence movement creates life. Without this imperfection, without this clash, everything would cease to exist. Logically there can never thus be perfection. Hence nature is necessarily imperfect, as must be God, if God must 'exist'. The reality shock (for some) is that there would be no life at all without this 'necessary imperfection'.
Moreover, the male can never be made equal to the female in biology or psychology. Not even the idea of 'unisexuality' helped reduce these natural differences (it did not even help reduce our invention of social genders either). To try and make male compatible with female would mean the altering of XY to XX (it that why they said Eve as XX was 'half' of Adam as XY). It is simply not possible unless we re-engineer evolution with our modern molecular biology.
Getting back to the religio-politician.
The theocrat knew that the sex differences would need to somehow be overcome. Hence Eve was cast in the role of 'sinful', in order to excuse her differences (man seemingly had no differences, as is the prevailing thought in our androcentric society). Man was ordered (by 'God' of course) to overcome this 'sin' (poor, poor womenfolk ever since), a sort of challenge, where he was promised some bliss at least in an afterlife (if there is one - one hopes so or the heterosexual).
As the sacred diminished and the secular took over, special rites of passage were introduced as rewards for males to marry females, achieve a home, and so on. Such material rewards only helped make the heterosexual play right into he hands of the theocrat of the past and the technocrat of today. Materialism was to be the replacement of that bliss that the heterosexual would never find. What a formula. And indeed how many are even vaguely aware of it. Such simple things, even like marriage, one glisses right over. For if heterosexual bonds were so natural and ever-lasting, why the legal and binding contract of marriage to hopefully keep the union ongoing ?
These endeavours only ensured the clever few at the top would of course get even richer. Such is the enslavement of humankind [The Liberation of Mankind by Hendrik Willem van Loon]. And the heterosexual, the religious, still looks forward with ego and pride to that day of the white wedding dress, the beautiful songs, the fast cars, and all the rest that goes with such a manneristic fairydom. Like the religionist, he confuses the things (the beautiful music) with reality, and that makes it all okay and hunky-dory. Look at how many pour out of Church believing God must exist, just because they were uplifted by the music. Look at how the heterosexual thinks the nuclear family will give him comfort, not realising that the communal one of primal times would have freed him of all enslavery (having to attend to babies and having to find baby-sitters, whilst in the communal setting he would not have had such a problem while he roamed with his male mates; and so on). And so it goes on.
And it was religion that became the master of the heterosexual slave. Utilising God's supposed 'word', the religio-politician could enforce heterosexuality. Hence you will find most heterosexuals are religious, whereas most homosexuals tend to love nature. Religion being the opposite of nature of course.
However, in reality, just as there is no heterosexuality, there is no such thing as any religion based on fact or truth either. No-one has ever been revealed to by any God. And religious followers also confuse belief for hope. What they should mean is "I hope there is a God".
But of course, hope and fear is what it is all about.
In a huge Universe, where evolution on one planet is bound to be different to that of another; we emerged on this planet to face enormous difficulties. One of these was the splitting of the single cell into two ('The Fall'). Sometimes three sexes were created (bees, moles, termites etc.); sometime both sexes in one organism (earthworms, most plants etc.); and sometimes the sex could be changed at will (oysters etc.). On those planets where evolution was different and created several sexes, can you imagine the problems there. The ideal of course would be one sex, wouldn't it. ("Love is the pursuit of the Whole" - Plato). And then, amidst all this we have always felt lonely in a seemingly anonymous Universe. Thus we developed myths to deal with all these problems.
However, certain myths were more natural (primal) than others, for they reflected nature as it was (there was no need to invent heterosexuality, for the religio-politician had not yet arrived on the scene). Most of these myths eventually became more heterosexual myths in order to fulfil the noxious aim of pure greed. A few clever men played on our fears of cosmic loneliness, our fears about whether God is 'out there', or if an afterlife exists. And unless one obeys the 'word', one gains no comfort as regards these fears. Hence the masses and the simpleton were/are too scared to make any changes. Like sheep they blurt out the same rhetoric, even to their children, not realising that they perpetuate the lie, and will thus ultimately hurt those they love.
For Religion and Heterosexuality are not about God or Survival, they are about Money, and that's all. They hurt all that is good and natural. A far cry from goodness. A far cry form the Jesus of the Christians. "From a man whose lips must have come nothing but pearls of wisdom, and rubies of kindness, the history of Christianity is a sorry book to peruse" [quote on the real Jesus (a.k.a. Joshua ben Joseph) from A Pictorial History of Philosophy]
Sadly we know very little about what the more natural philosophers, like Jesus (Plato et al) had to say. For one thing, anything they did say, has been corrupted throughout the centuries. More astonishingly (especially to the religious when they delve into the history of religions or philosophy) is that of the two greatest men that ever lived, neither recorded their philosophies. All we have of Jesus is a work of unknown authorship called the 'Q' writings (or more accurately 'sayings') and the 'Gospel of Thomas'; and even those are subject. Indeed Jesus may not have lived at all. It is quite certain that the mythical Jesus created by the demonic Paul, served to fulfil the greed of the Romans (and their later Church) than anything spiritual at all. What is indeed most alarming for the religio-heterosexual is the fact that Plato was a homosexual, and there is enough evidence to suggest that Jesus has homosexual relationships too.
Indeed there are some fragments that frighten the Xtians to death, like Jesus's affair with the 'youth' (a young male) in Lazarus's cave. Or Jesus's affair with John ("the disciple who Jesus loved") where the homosexual King James (same as KJ Bible) said "Christ had his John and I have my Steenie". [Gay and Lesbian Quotations by Quentin Crisp : Jonathan Loved David, Biblical Homosexuality by Tom Horner : The Secret Gospel by Morton Smith].
Indeed we find the few 'masters' and 'philosophers' who spoke any truth at all, were those who were natural. For they, loving nature, and enjoying its natural offering, had little to hide. They could see the dangers of religio-politics, and they preached against religion, lest it abuse all nature. They also followed nature to the extent that they would enjoy its fruits of homosexual bonding.
Is it any wonder that Jesus was then the epitome of 'good', that Plato was the epitome of 'truth', or that the numerous artists (da Vinci etc.) portrayed the epitome of 'beauty'. It is small wonder that the few left-over teachings on the good, the beauty and the truth, that have survived authorial corruption's (or wholesale burnings), originated from the more natural philosophers. This author has yet to find a heterosexual male in history who was so whole (heterosexuals can only ever be 'half', as we shall see shortly) whose wisdom was as encyclopaedic or whose truth was as much in accordance with nature as was Jesus (or his ideals), Plato and the da Vinci's of this world. And one must not here confuse surface genius and material masters with wholesome one's. Not even Einstein with all his 'material' genius knew the whole. He said "The more I see of science, the more I know I am dealing with philosophy ... I do not understand it."
The sad fact is, no matter how much in love he pretends to be, no matter how wise he feels he is, no matter how much he thinks he knows what sexual pleasure really is; the male homosexual ( and the female for that matter) never reaches 'wholeness'. Heterosexuals never know Plato's 'the Good, the Beauty, and the Truth'. And the greatest of these must be Love ... the one thing the heterosexual strives for, but never knows.
Any child can read up on the development of religion [The Eastern philosophers by E.W. Tomlin] to find that every religion borrowed its ideas from the next, and that none were based on truthful accounts (even if some happening did take place, they have been distorted unfortunately).
Anyone can also read up on philosophy to see what it is that Plato was saying. Here was yet another man, like Jesus, who knew nature could not be changed.
As for beauty, as for love, how would the heterosexual really know he could get better, until he tries it. Many do, and they come back for more ... especially married men !
Our androcentric heterosexuality has thus been used to ensure a greater mass of people. Our anthropomorphic (God in human form) and other religions have been used to enforce it, by saying that this is God's will (whereas in fact it is man's). And to ensure some bliss in what can then only result in a most unhappy state of affairs for all, material rewards are offered. Such are we anthropocentric superstitious lot on this wee planet. And as if we are the only species with any 'intellect' in this vast cosmos. [The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan].
Of course religion, when it began waning, had to find another source of indoctrination; hence the rise of secular indoctrination in the family (as if there were nuclear families in primal times), within the education system and everywhere (read Mishima in the book Homosexuals in History by A.L.Rowse) else 'advertised' on billboards, in kintergarten readers, in soap operas, in love songs and all the other make-believe fairy tales that try to enforce "and they loved happily ever after."
In secular indoctrination [See Tripp] the male and female are socialised to deny the opposites in themselves. The male is taught to deny his feminine traits (thus ensuring the aggressive path to power), and the female her male attributes. This is all done in the hope that each will try and find their other half in the other. Indeed these fold become 'half' people, never again whole (which is how they were born). To further enhance these social differences (as if the biological and psychological one's will go away), males are given phonetically harsher sounding names; girls are handled more gently; and so on [see Tripp for the countless other ways]. Indeed, as we have read above, the 'good doctor' (Freud, although he was an atheist) told parents to discourage any 'fixation' (as if it was a fixation at all) at any of the psychosexual stages of development (as described above: oral, anal, phallic etc.). What he was really saying was "Don't let your children explore the natural homoerotic desires in any of these stages, they must be overcome". It was only much later that Freud, and his disciple, Stekel, had to admit that "we are all born bisexual" and due to our departure from nature "all men are latent, repressed or overt homosexuals". The latter would not have been the case if we followed natural law, for all men would indeed enjoy homosexual acts. Without invented laws to say otherwise, why would the 'hole' of one form of pleasure (male) be any different than the 'hole' of another form of pleasure (female) ? It would not be, except for the heightened pleasure of the prostatic orgasm in men.
This eternal 'divide and rule' formula used by the power-monger for centuries in all spheres of life has seen god rule over humans, white over black, christian over jew, males over females, and finally, heterosexuals over homosexuals. (By the way, try looking for a 'slave' and 'master' gene, as if genes have anything to do with our socialised labels). Hence the enslavery of humankind, hence the violence within all these 'labels'. But that is what happens when one departs from nature. [Katz, van Loon]
If it was so plain for all to see in secular society, then why all the education, advertising and enforcement's toward heterosexuality. If it was so plain for all to see in nature, then why is it that the screening (meaning 'to hide the truth) myths in all hetero-religio-materialistic cultures have to be enforced upon people, daily ... indeed why was there a need to write them at all. For instance, take note of the italics in the paraphrased passage that follows from Genesis:
"In his perfect wisdom, God created male for female, so that they should marry and multiply, and subdue all nature; and by the sweat of their brow, toil all the days of their lives".
And of course, they not only don't realise how much they will suffer such an unnatural lifestyle, but they never realise for whom they are toiling. They toil for the religio-politician.
But in the end, materialism and the wake of destruction it has left behind, like heterosexuality and religion, has broken down all relationships; human to human, human to God, human to environment.
And it has brought no happiness to the slave or the master.
(Talking of environment, doesn't it just kill you when you hear they are going to cull more elephants due to lack of green space. Or that dolphins must die horrible suffocation's in tuna nets in order that the masses are fed timeously. Or that oxygen is begin depleted as forests are cut down to make way for more nuclear families ... )
There simply is no such thing as heterosexuality in reality (nature). Nor has anyone ever been revealed to by any God (by the way, it is logical that green seven-fingered aliens on another planet would see their god as green and seven fingered). And materialism has never brought anyone happiness.
One can choose to work against nature, or one can flow with it. However, if there is a God, then nature is God's only law. One can flow with nature, in the 'spirit of the thing' and thus remain spiritual, or one can opt to be religious and be duped by its evils forevermore.
Nature and History are our only true teachers, and no-one can deny the observable facts and persistent patterns over time that both offer. Academics, propagandists, heterosexuals, religionists and materialists can try all they like to theorise, offer opinion, believe, and thus ultimately ... hope. But that will not change fact, whether natural or historical. One cannot defeat Occam's razor either. In sum: One cannot change what is !
For those who wish to pursue God, there is a surer path via quantum (micro) and astro (macro) physics. Religionists hate that of course, becuase both show clearly that there is no dualism, for energy and matter are the same thing (in fact there is no such thing as matter at all). That hardly assists the dualistic doctrine of body and soul. It also doesn't assist the futile dogma that there is good and evil either. Dualism works as a 'divide and rule' formula. Humans being separated from God also makes it possible for them to obey her/his/its 'word'.
The quantum and astro realms also stink of pantheism (all is one, god in all things, "the sympathy of all things') as far as religionists feel. That would hardly fit into the scheme of things for those power-mongers who wish to separate us from God (dualism, sin etc.). For how then would they get us all to obey God's word (ie: man's word) if God (nature/energy/call it what you like) is Within us. Being within us would give us the power, hardly an aim of the religio-politician.
The Judeo-Christian religion also detests the oscillating theory (the most plausible of the three theories) of the Universe, for it shows that there was no single creation, nor will there be a final destruction; only an eternal Universe ... much like Einstein's statement on quantum physics "Energy is never created, nor destroyed, only transferred" (talk about 'eternal life' at least in some form). These concepts would hardly make religion a force to be reckoned with, thus the religio-politician avoids talking about them at all costs. [The New Physics by Paul Davies : The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra : The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan : The Supernatural A-Z by James Randi].
Until we rid the myths of the hetero-religio-materialist, this poor wee planet will never come right. And if the myth was working, we would not be in the sad position we have been in since the emergence of those so-called noble aims of civilisation, viz "for the good of all".
It has only ever been for the good of a select few. So much for the Church latching onto Darwin's "the survival of the fittest", but then has the Church ever worried about brotherly love anyway.
And those select few, be they yesterday's (sacred) theocrat or today's (secular) technocrat, have taken advantage of those 'sexual problems' of evolution that cannot be resolved --- enslaving humankind by playing upon its spiritual fears --- resulting in a materialistic existence that is a far cry from Love, God or Nature. Sex, God and Money have nothing to do with real Bonding, Spirit and Experiential Bliss; and its followers thus know not the parallels "Good, Truth & Beauty" ... hence there is no LOVE !
But who knows, with information now being uncovered (after centuries of being hidden by Churches and Governments), and dispersed on the internet at the rate of the electron; maybe, just maybe we shall one day all become free (thus even the animals and the planet). But please ... never believe your professor when he/she says "Oh we'll never be free, it's the human condition". The religio-politician created that human condition. There was no greed in primal times (we had just emerged from the apes), nor was there any need of it. By the way, the bonobo chimps are today challenging that so-called 'human condition' - for they make live, not war. Much research is being done on these wonderful beings. Also, don't be fooled by the religious who say that we should not be like the animals (mainly because they see homosexuality in animals of course). Indeed we should be much more like the animals, for we are ourselves animals (like it or not), and animals follow natural law. If we all followed natural law (God's only law) we'd all be far better off. Tell the religious that you are not religious, because you like the idea of God far too much for that. "The Greatest God is Truth" - Gandhi. Tell your professor as far as truth is concerned "Belief in truth begins with doubting all that has hitherto been believed to be true" - Nietzsche. Tell the materialist who administers all his/her 'things' that "All work and no play makes Jack [and Jill] a very dull boy [girl]" in the end. As for the heterosexual, tell him/her that they cannot say they dislike avocado if they haven't tasted it.
Simply put, one can summarise this entire paper as follows:
To fulfil the aims of those who seek greed, there has to be the breed (masses). And to enforce the breed, one has to make them obey a creed. And what better creed than to say "because God said so" or secular indoctrination says don't 'fixate' (as if this is a pathology). Greed is thus fulfilled. Hence the links and the chronological order ... Sex, God and Money.
One must never confuse natural male-female coition for heterosexuality, nor religion for natural spirituality, nor things (materialism) for experience (bliss).
Once you know that, you learn to enjoy the colours of the rainbow at every point along life's path, rather than unhappily seeking what you will ultimately find, is an illusory pot 'o gold a the end.
The answers my friend are blowing in the wind, yet they are far more simple than others would want you to believe. As Wittgenstein said when he put a stop to philosophy and its later mumbo-jumbo "Look, Don't Think". You have only but to look to nature to find your answers (next time at the beach observer that the black and white seagulls are all in a group; yes they are all males.) Live your life WITH nature and bliss shall be yours.
In the end, I am not saying nature shows us to be homosexual. Homosexuals have developed as many false behaviours as have heterosexuals. Both labels are fictitious. What I am saying is that nature does not make for heterosexuality; indeed heterosexuality is naturally impossible in nature. Nature makes for male-female coition, but is does not make for male-female bonding. Nature does not make for same sex procreation (at least not in humans), but it makes for same sex bonding. Since sex occurs due to pleasure, and pleasure alone, it is also quite clear that in the way the human species have been designed, the same sexes will enjoy sex more of the time. Indeed, if one wanted to just roughly calculate how much, then one must take into account that males can insert and be inserted, whereas, females can only be inserted. Men have double the advantage and thus they would engage in intercourse 2/3's of the time with each other, and only 1/3 of the time with women. However, even that would be far too much as far as women are concerned, as population levels would rise too quickly. Thus the prostatic orgasm (between males) was made by nature as the highest of the sexual pleasures, which along with all the differences between male and female, ensure that male-female coition is reduced to a bare minimum. Besides which, females are designed by nature not to be able to bear more than her fair share of children due to the time constraints imposed by pregnancy, not to mention menstruation and menopause. It is clear that her time with the male is restricted both sexually and even physically (she has to find time to nurture children). As the species grows in population size, form one generation to the next, infant mortality and the like, take care of the population problem. Thus is nature's balance.
Men are not as insatiably driven to women as we would like to believe, they are insatiably sexual ('male excess' or 'libido'). And that drive (which has no sexual direction/orientation) would be equally, if not more thoroughly enjoyed, when one male engages another --- and hence that is the erroneous fear of so many --- as if the species would the die out (we have seen it doesn't/wouldn't). Women are painted up, dressed up and perfumed to make them 'appear' as beautiful as the male in any species. However, what is hidden down below can never be painted up, dressed up or even perfumed. Men are kept as ordinary as possible, or as Gide said "as grub in the bushes" so that they will not 'appear' to be as 'beautiful' as the 'flower' (ie: female). However this does not always work, and certainly, once the male comes face to face with the vagina, the entire illusion is shattered. Heterosexual males also confuse what is 'beautiful', and what it is exactly that attracts them. Firstly, he is unaware that he could or should enjoy the more natural beauty of other males. Secondly, he is unaware that his sexual drive is for sex pleasure in general, not for women in particular. Any hole can give pleasure (some far more than others, as we have seen). Thirdly, he confuses the fact that male and female flesh are the same. For instance, a woman with a tight-fitting smooth bathing costume, shows off the skin, and arouses the male's sexual appetite. However, he can find the same appeal on a tight fitting speedo on a male's buttocks; but he is taught not to look at this (which they can't really avoid). Sexologists tell us that as we emerged from the primates that natural selection reduced body hair in order to aid sexual stimulation. What we are kept in the dark about, is the fact that flesh is flesh, no matter which sex we are talking about.
There are no such constructs as heterosexuality and homosexuality, nor the false behaviours that have been learned along with them [see the movie Powder]. There is also no need in nature for such constructs, nor any sound reason in socialisation to invent then; for nature has always survived (and in a much better fashion) without them. I wish I could change the picture (for some) of the human species, but I cannot. And until we realise how much damage we are doing to ourselves and all else (including finding any real concept of God); none of us will ever find 'contentment' [Laurence van der Post].
Nature however cannot be changed, and when it has been, the results have been disastrous !!! Shame on the religio-hetero-materialist; they have killed love, God and life.
If one takes the time to think about it seriously, what could ever be wrong with homosexuality. Firstly, it is the one form of sex that has not ever caused any misery to humankind. Secondly, it cannot be used as a trap, the same way women try to bait and trap a man by becoming pregnant. Thirdly, it does not cause over-population, and at the same time does not threaten under-population. Indeed, in the most homosexual societies, fertility rates are high.
And it seems that as evolve our thinking, new relationships are taking hold everyday, which appear much like the older one's of communal times. However, instead of the male of communal times being free to roam and enjoy his male mates, he now is at least much more free today in that the invention of marriage is having less hold on people. We find him having less attachment to the 'mother', hence the rise of single parent families or arrangements where if he is part of the same household, he is free to roam and find sex elsewhere. As in communal times where women tended to children, we see many constructs today, whereby women are going back to this natural role (although nursery schools have had to be invented to cope with a situation that otherwise would not have been found in the communal group of mothers). More and more, we find men divorcing their wives and paying maintenance for the children. This is far more like the communal situation whereby the male provided food for the whole tribe, while the group of mothers tended children. She played her natural role as 'verbaliser' by tending children, and he maintained his physique and thus good genes ('seed') by roaming and running with his male mates. Trying to tie a man down with a women would thus neither be natural, nor proper if either sex was to follow its natural tasks. Trying to change the picture has only brought about the many problems we find today in heterosexual relationships, which have resulted in nothing but an economic relationship, hardly based on anything real at all. She looks forward to an expensive ring, while he looks forward to proudly being able to boast a house and 'family' (as if the nuclear family is natural). But none of it works. And with religion being on the decline, neither partner feels they have to grin and bear it anymore. Thus the high rate of divorce today at around 69% on the average the world over. That figure does not of course include the rate for separations, or the number of unhappy male-female relationships. Humankind has yet to see a living example of the latter.
It is interesting to hear sexologists state that the main reason for divorce, is in their 'opinion', due to the fact that females (whether they bear children or not) have major problems with retaining their 'beautiful' bodies from a fairly early age, due to oestrogen. The hips swell even larger than their already and necessarily disproportionate size (due to women being made to bear children) and a host of other problems (fat creases, cellulite) occur. Apparently the male seeks younger females who would have slightly narrower hips and fewer other biological problems. Of course what the male heterosexual is not aware of is the fact that he can find this 'beauty' to an even larger degree in males, and of any age, who have no such problems, and who in reality have an indisputably far better beauty than any female could ever have (and that includes the vagina).
The male heterosexual therefore continues to try women out sexually, as encouraged by religion, not nature (ie: the vagina repels him, but male-male anal intercourse is pleasurable). He does not know he could find better sexual pleasure and bonding elsewhere (although, when he experiments with other men, he always comes back for more).
The female heterosexual, although attracted to the wrong body parts (eg: the buttocks, with which she can do nothing) and detracted from the right parts (eg: only 2.9% find penises attractive, 4.3% find chests and arms attractive); it seems right from the beginning has only found any attraction in economic terms. The first human relationships began with the economic 'division of labour' (men exchanged hunted meat for vegetables/grubs gathered by women), and are today quite the same, except it is even more plastic in nature, namely the diamond ring and all the other material 'rewards'. Thus she continues to seek the male, albeit on a plastic basis. If anyone could be blamed for heterosexuality continuing since its invention, it must be the female; for it is she that apparently seeks materialism. Then again, she has been cast in the role of evil and plastic since time immemorial. What one has to determine is if she has always been false, or if she has learned to become that way due to the invention of heterosexuality. I would hope it is the latter.
The final statement that the author can make, is one that is indisputable, and one that clearly sets the matter at rest : Male and female were evolved in the accidental process of 'natural selection' for procreation; but beyond that, recreational sex is not natural, nor is bonding made in anyway easy (neither physically/biologically/pleasure nor emotionally/psychologically/communication). As in the animals with their brief mating season, and in primal man (where natural selection forgot the mating season completely), it is clear in the natural setting that the only sexual (biological) and bonding (psychological) relationship the opposite sexes can perform with the least amount of problems, is the brief one of coition (procreation) and nothing more (recreation, bonding). Every atom of the microcosm to every giant supernova of the macrocosm, indeed at every level of the entire Universe, we find the brief 'union of opposites' (a dusk and dawn, where day meets night), but 99% of the time we find the 'clash of opposites'. If the opposites united for any length of time, the day would become night, hot would become cold, oil would mix with water, indeed their would be no 'fire' (Heraclitus) and hence no movement/change, and hence no existence at all. Yet a handful of clever power-mongers thought they could change it all. And for material rewards that have made themselves and their 'sheep' even more unhappy than nature ever created them. Nature indeed slaps them back in the face, all of them, and one of them ever find contentment, let alone bliss.
Returning to the title of this paper, sex, god and money are paralleled by the female, the priest and the king (or power-monger). Each of them wears a costume, as outrageous and adorned as some clown; and all of them hide the evils that lurk beneath, viz: the vagina, god's supposed word, and greed.
The sheep that they are, follow blindly, by being entertained by the show-business and pageantry of the Church, the ambience of the candles, the harmonious music, the uplifting words; and through a mass hypnosis (not unlike any voodoo trance, or trance state caused by fasting in the monastery, or hypnotic brain-washing in the army etc.) confuses this 'transcendence' for the idea that the religious idea of God is true. Similarly, the male is absorbed by the same pageantry at the wedding service, plus even more glitter and spangles of the wedding dress, the idea that he can boast that he will acquire a 'home', or please his peer group by having 'achieved' his new marital status, and so on; while the hypnotic suggestion of it all helps him to forget (at least for a while) the problems of the female ... that is until he gets home of course. And so he plays right into the hands of the king, the government, the wealthy businessmen, all of whom will now rely on him to produce the masses that keep the wheels of greed a turning. Yet he never really knows if his religion can answer his spiritual questions, nor does he find the bliss with his wife that he was told he would find, and lastly, the only other option for some bliss, namely 'materialism' also yields little bliss in the end.
For it is in all nature that we know nothing about a god or gods, save that this might be some 'energy' within the Universe. And it is in all nature that male and female come together only briefly, and then only to procreate. And even if we wish to draw all the comparisons we wish to with the animal kingdom, we still find not a trace of heterosexuality, nor is it possible in humans. We find homosexuality in animals (even if Ms Goodall wants to call penis-fencing amongst males chimps a non-homosexual act); indeed we can find all sorts of sexual acts (the author is not talking about bonding here). And in humans we find the most extreme differences between the sexes. Lastly, with all our material desires, hoping that these will distract us from our boredom, decrease our fears of nothing else available after death, and somehow overcome the immense problems of heterosexual relationships; nothing really helps. The few who survive are those who have come to know nature to the extent that they are comfortable with its eternal cycles and 'energy' (god), its 'accidents' and forms, and thus experiential bliss rather than the eternal juggling and restrictive administration of materials ... as the saying goes "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy!". It is thus these few who enjoy the Good, the Beauty and the Truth ... and thus ultimately Love. It is the majority who preach evil masquerading as good (religion), seek beauty where it cannot be found (heterosexuality), and tell lies where truth shows experiential joy is 'The Way' (materialism) ... and thus they do not Love god, nor others, nor nature.
The religio-hetero-materialist is but a mis-mated species, abounding with myths and superstitions, and romantic fairy tales of a manneristic nature; who as a result of the lack of bliss, but much fear; tries to find material replacements for it all. Yet he plays right into the hands of the master enslaver, who knows religion is not God's word, who knows heterosexuality is not natural, but who knows that money counts. And the sheep are none the wiser for the truth. Indeed, like the power-monger, they will hurt all else as well.
The final suggestion the author can make is as follows: It is simply no use trying to argue with the hetero-religio-materialist on his/her grounds. Until the carpet is pulled right from under their feet, this poor planet and all its sentient beings will continue to suffer, no matter what sexual orientation they follow (though it is clear that since homosexuals are somewhat closer to nature, they will experience at least some lesser difficulties). The world simply needs to be alerted to the fact that heterosexuality is unnatural, which will soon sort out the propagandist. Also, they need to be made aware that religion is neither based on fact nor truth. And then, they need to be given first hand examples of how materialism has destroyed them, the planet and any notion of God (for those who want to know a God).
In the natural setting their would be little need of arguments either way, for heterosexuality and homosexuality would not exist as solid and diametrically opposed constructs (labels). If all were happy and population levels naturally controlled in the natural setting, what need would their be for materialism when experiential bliss was enjoyed everyday. Indeed what need of religion when everyone would flow in the 'spirit of the thing' (spirituality). No-one could argue against these points on any valid grounds. But would that suit the power-monger ? Indeed, is this a Utopia ? We all at one time way back acted like this, so how utopian is it ? Indeed, if humans are so capable of making radical change, how come they can't rid the power-monger ? The answer is, that we are so far flung from nature, that material rewards seems hard to give up ... it is all that we know (at least most of us). But these attitudes are a-changing today. Humankind is tired of being enslaved. Indeed the attitudes of the masses are maturing ... and the internet is helping each and everyday.
But then, there are the few, as has always been the case, who have seen through it all, whether Plato, Jesus or da Vinci or countless other natural philosophers; who enjoy the Good, the Beauty and the Truth ... and above all Love ... even in today's society. With internet, it is inevitable that more and more will be allowed to know these natural gifts of the Universe, as religion, heterosexuality and materialism die for the evils that they indeed are.
For those who will find it hard to give up their most dear and cherished illusions, what else can I say, but look to nature. Odd, how we find it is the very opposite to what we had always been told.
As regards 'want', you will find (as the elderly will easily admit) that a life of experience (the colours of the rainbow) bring more happiness than materialism (the illusory pot of gold at the end of the rainbow).
As regards God, no matter what your belief, you will in later years come to realise that the mind in nature is the only true spirit, and that religion has caused more harm to humankind than any other aspect of our existence.
As for your sex life ...
You can philosophise and cook up as many recipes as you like, but in the end "you can't cook fellatio, you just suck" ! [Heterosexuality by Gillian Handscombe and Martin Humphries].
In order to help promote the destruction of the evils contained within religion, heterosexuality and materialism, the author encourages the reader to construct his own essays (where this paper can be used in whole or in part without permission or copyright problems) and submit them to as many publishers and organisations as possible. To further aid the process the author encourages the reader to have t-shirts printed with the following slogans, for we have far too long suffered the opposition's slogans:
"Thousands of people are leaving the Church to find God"
"If heterosexual pleasure was natural, condoms would grow on trees"
"Materialism, the replacement for religion's and heterosexuality's lack of bliss"
Apart from the three main slogans, here are some additional one's right in the face of the religio-hetero-materialist:
"Jesus loved John and the male youth of the Secret Gospel of Mark"
"There is no sexual instinct to guide male to female : Sexology (& Ethology)"
"If males and females were 'created' for each other, they would have been created much more alike biologically and psychologically"
"Gone with the religious, they have killed our idea of God"
"Gone with the heterosexuals, they have worked against nature"
The author has noted that the above work has been e-mailed, posted to newsgroups, sent to publishers and everywhere else.
All I can say is ... carry on, but it's not nearly enough ! Please send this paper far and wide ... continuously !!!
A scholarly version of this paper is also under preparation.
[The quotations herein are not necessarily from the books/authors in brackets.]