College Course: Heterosexuality Is Not “Natural”
invite response
2018 Sep 10, 10:02am 12,753 views 65 comments
« First « Previous Comments 10 - 49 of 65 Next » Last » Search these comments
10
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 1:38pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 1:38pm
curious2 says
I understand your point, but disagree with because of the following:
This
“It also seeks to critique how heterosexuality is presumed as natural.”
Seems to be very, very wrong, and comes from description of the course. Description of the course and the person teaching it leads me to believe that course will be SJW nonsense.
Person who will teach it:
Title: Assistant Professor of Culture and Media
Department: Department of Culture and Media (Lang)
School/Office: Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts
It is not a biology person who teaches it.
not the course description.
I understand your point, but disagree with because of the following:
This
“It also seeks to critique how heterosexuality is presumed as natural.”
Seems to be very, very wrong, and comes from description of the course. Description of the course and the person teaching it leads me to believe that course will be SJW nonsense.
Person who will teach it:
Title: Assistant Professor of Culture and Media
Department: Department of Culture and Media (Lang)
School/Office: Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts
It is not a biology person who teaches it.
11
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 1:44pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 1:44pm
@curious2, you are overthinking it. Given background and previous teaching/"research" history of the person who teaches it (see below), course will be heterosexual patriarchy bashing propaganda.
I found xer CV on internets. No education in biology, so chance that xe knows anything about it is minimal. I edited out name etc
Ph.D., Joint Program in Communication. Dissertation: Art That Loves People: Relational Subjectivity in Community-based art
M.A. Communication and Culture
B.A. (Honours) Cultural Studies
I found xer CV on internets. No education in biology, so chance that xe knows anything about it is minimal. I edited out name etc
Ph.D., Joint Program in Communication. Dissertation: Art That Loves People: Relational Subjectivity in Community-based art
M.A. Communication and Culture
B.A. (Honours) Cultural Studies
12
Automan Empire
2018 Sep 10, 1:46pm
Automan Empire
2018 Sep 10, 1:46pm
The title is a straw claim, not any part of the actual title or syllabus of the course in question.
In other words, OP misunderstands/misrepresents the course right off the bat. Everything that follows relegates to "Fruit of the Bullshit Tree."
The course raises much, MUCH more interesting concepts than "PUSHING TEH GAY ON VOLNERABLE (sic) COLLEGE STUDENTS!!1!" Wonder what people like OP deal with cognitively when processing ideas like "plants and insects evolved bestiality-like mating strategies."
In other words, OP misunderstands/misrepresents the course right off the bat. Everything that follows relegates to "Fruit of the Bullshit Tree."
The course raises much, MUCH more interesting concepts than "PUSHING TEH GAY ON VOLNERABLE (sic) COLLEGE STUDENTS!!1!" Wonder what people like OP deal with cognitively when processing ideas like "plants and insects evolved bestiality-like mating strategies."
13
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 1:47pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 1:47pm
dr6B says
Those are good points and the background of the professor might limit the ability to answer student questions and direct student research. This might though be a good time to agree on basic definitions, in this instance "critique" when used as a verb:
Google:
"evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way.
"the authors critique the methods and practices used in the research""
Cambridge Dictionary:
"to give an opinion or judgment about a piece or work, book, film, etc:
Students take turns critiquing each others' work."
The "rant and rave" blog seems to have misinterpreted "critique" to mean "reject", which is a different word.
It is not a biology person who teaches it.
Those are good points and the background of the professor might limit the ability to answer student questions and direct student research. This might though be a good time to agree on basic definitions, in this instance "critique" when used as a verb:
Google:
"evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way.
"the authors critique the methods and practices used in the research""
Cambridge Dictionary:
"to give an opinion or judgment about a piece or work, book, film, etc:
Students take turns critiquing each others' work."
The "rant and rave" blog seems to have misinterpreted "critique" to mean "reject", which is a different word.
14
EBGuy
2018 Sep 10, 1:51pm
Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia address what they see as the biggest gap in women’s studies—the failure to have any requirement for biology.www.youtube.com/embed/O-FpolYd6fc
15
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 1:57pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 1:57pm
@curious2, how can person evaluate and critically analyze something if xe has no education in the field?
There are more red flags in course description:
disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature, and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.
Drawing from traditions as diverse as evolutionary biology, LGBTQ+ movements, feminist science studies, and environmental justice, this course will highlight the complexity of contemporary biopolitics,
This is bat-shit crazy crap. Biology will be analyzed based on "LGBTQ movements"? WTF?
There are more red flags in course description:
disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature, and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.
Drawing from traditions as diverse as evolutionary biology, LGBTQ+ movements, feminist science studies, and environmental justice, this course will highlight the complexity of contemporary biopolitics,
This is bat-shit crazy crap. Biology will be analyzed based on "LGBTQ movements"? WTF?
16
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 2:03pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 2:03pm
dr6B says
That's a good question, and I would be curious to see the reading materials and the direction(s) of student research, but all advances in every field have come from people who learned things they had not been taught in school. For example, Thomas Edison had attended only a few months of school. His mother taught him at home, and he read books, and he visited Cooper Union, but he had no formal degree of any kind. Nobody taught him how to make a light bulb, or even that it could be done, and yet he did it.
how can person evaluate and critically analyze something if xe has no education in the field?
That's a good question, and I would be curious to see the reading materials and the direction(s) of student research, but all advances in every field have come from people who learned things they had not been taught in school. For example, Thomas Edison had attended only a few months of school. His mother taught him at home, and he read books, and he visited Cooper Union, but he had no formal degree of any kind. Nobody taught him how to make a light bulb, or even that it could be done, and yet he did it.
17
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 2:03pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 2:03pm
Automan Empire says
I personally think that re-imagination of evolutionary processes in light of queer theory and heterosexist discursive is the ultimate Fruit of Bullshit
disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature, and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.
Everything that follows relegates to "Fruit of the Bullshit Tree."
I personally think that re-imagination of evolutionary processes in light of queer theory and heterosexist discursive is the ultimate Fruit of Bullshit
disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature, and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.
18
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 2:04pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 2:04pm
curious2 says
Edison did not re-imagine light bulb in light of queer theory and heterosexist discourse.
For example, Thomas Edison had attended only a few months of school.
Edison did not re-imagine light bulb in light of queer theory and heterosexist discourse.
19
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 2:10pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 2:10pm
dr6B says
He re-imagined light. In one of his early demonstrations, he hired people to wear light bulbs on their heads. Onlookers were shocked, because it looked like the wearers' heads were on fire. Nobody had ever seen anything like it before.
He had also a major role in the development of motion pictures. One of the first showed a train on a track, and the track turned toward the camera, and the train approached the camera. Audience members ran out of the room. They had never seen a train moving directly toward them unless it was an actual train moving toward them.
Turning to the OP course description, a serious research area in the developed world involves the evolving methods of reproduction. IVF, for example, was opposed by the Vatican, but is now ubiquitous in the west. (I miss @turtledove, who could explain in greater detail.) Japanese researchers can convert skin cells into eggs or sperm cells. Within a decade, we will probably see an artificial uterus. That involves re-imagining heterosexuality.
curious2 saysFor example, Thomas Edison had attended only a few months of school.
Edison did not re-imagine light bulb in light of queer theory and heterosexist discourse.
He re-imagined light. In one of his early demonstrations, he hired people to wear light bulbs on their heads. Onlookers were shocked, because it looked like the wearers' heads were on fire. Nobody had ever seen anything like it before.
He had also a major role in the development of motion pictures. One of the first showed a train on a track, and the track turned toward the camera, and the train approached the camera. Audience members ran out of the room. They had never seen a train moving directly toward them unless it was an actual train moving toward them.
Turning to the OP course description, a serious research area in the developed world involves the evolving methods of reproduction. IVF, for example, was opposed by the Vatican, but is now ubiquitous in the west. (I miss @turtledove, who could explain in greater detail.) Japanese researchers can convert skin cells into eggs or sperm cells. Within a decade, we will probably see an artificial uterus. That involves re-imagining heterosexuality.
20
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 2:22pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 2:22pm
curious2 says
Heterosexuality yes, but not heteroSEXIST discourse, which is one of keywords for SJW nonsense. I think you are too non-cynical and kind in believing that a course such as this will contain anything other than FWM basing. Teacher has gone through SJW education, has extensively published SJW nonsense masquerading as research, has not published a single biology-related article, and description of course is full of SJW terms. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is duck.
That involves re-imagining heterosexuality.
Heterosexuality yes, but not heteroSEXIST discourse, which is one of keywords for SJW nonsense. I think you are too non-cynical and kind in believing that a course such as this will contain anything other than FWM basing. Teacher has gone through SJW education, has extensively published SJW nonsense masquerading as research, has not published a single biology-related article, and description of course is full of SJW terms. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is duck.
21
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 2:29pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 2:29pm
dr6B says
Thanks - you are the third person in as many days to call me too kind, the others being IRL. As for being cynical, IDK, I presume innocence wrt the New School, having met extremely smart people who studied there years ago.
dr6B says
I agree with you that is a bad sign.
I think you are too non-cynical and kind
Thanks - you are the third person in as many days to call me too kind, the others being IRL. As for being cynical, IDK, I presume innocence wrt the New School, having met extremely smart people who studied there years ago.
dr6B says
has not published a single biology-related article
I agree with you that is a bad sign.
22
socal2
2018 Sep 10, 2:41pm
curious2 says
Really?
Just because science can sew a dick onto a chick, doesn't mean I need to "re-imagine the sexes".
Just so crazy how less than half a percent of the population who have some clear biological and/or psychological abnormalities requires us to "re-imagine" immutable biological facts.
Within a decade, we will probably see an artificial uterus. That involves re-imagining heterosexuality.
Really?
Just because science can sew a dick onto a chick, doesn't mean I need to "re-imagine the sexes".
Just so crazy how less than half a percent of the population who have some clear biological and/or psychological abnormalities requires us to "re-imagine" immutable biological facts.
23
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 2:51pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 2:51pm
socal2 says
Most of the demand for new reproductive technology comes from women, especially the growing number who postpone childbirth for various reasons. Women are a majority of the population. Again, I wish @turtledove were here to explain these facts to you in greater detail.
less than half a percent of the population
Most of the demand for new reproductive technology comes from women, especially the growing number who postpone childbirth for various reasons. Women are a majority of the population. Again, I wish @turtledove were here to explain these facts to you in greater detail.
24
socal2
2018 Sep 10, 3:29pm
curious2 says
Does this mean we can have even more single mothers!
The liberals did a great job "re-imagining" the nuclear family and look what it got us over the last 30+ years. Vast majorities of African Americans and Hispanics born to single parents and guaranteed poverty, crime, dysfunction and a lifetime need for government assistance.
Most of the demand for new reproductive technology comes from women, especially the growing number who postpone childbirth for various reasons.
Does this mean we can have even more single mothers!
The liberals did a great job "re-imagining" the nuclear family and look what it got us over the last 30+ years. Vast majorities of African Americans and Hispanics born to single parents and guaranteed poverty, crime, dysfunction and a lifetime need for government assistance.
25
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 3:36pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 3:36pm
socal2 says
Is that a question, or an exclamation? If you have a question, then perhaps you should read more widely or ask IRL. The advancing technology means more people can become parents if they want to. That includes married women, who are likely most of the customers. Again, if @turtledove were here, she could provide greater detail.
Does this mean we can have even more single mothers!
Is that a question, or an exclamation? If you have a question, then perhaps you should read more widely or ask IRL. The advancing technology means more people can become parents if they want to. That includes married women, who are likely most of the customers. Again, if @turtledove were here, she could provide greater detail.
26
Automan Empire
2018 Sep 10, 4:10pm
Automan Empire
2018 Sep 10, 4:10pm
dr6B says
Calm down there, Archie Bunker!
Obviously YOU see no utility in not seeing the universe solipsistically in terms of human gender and reproduction.
Examples of usefulness of other paradigms have already been brought up. Science fiction writers imagined non-binary reproductive biologies such as two males and a nonsentient female for one example. I read these during my formative years and it didn't harm my heterosexuality but enriched my imagination.
So, WHY does it matter to you that these ideas are discussed?
I personally think that re-imagination of evolutionary processes in light of queer theory and heterosexist discursive is the ultimate Fruit of Bullshit
disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature, and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.
Calm down there, Archie Bunker!
Obviously YOU see no utility in not seeing the universe solipsistically in terms of human gender and reproduction.
Examples of usefulness of other paradigms have already been brought up. Science fiction writers imagined non-binary reproductive biologies such as two males and a nonsentient female for one example. I read these during my formative years and it didn't harm my heterosexuality but enriched my imagination.
So, WHY does it matter to you that these ideas are discussed?
27
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 4:15pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 4:15pm
NuttBoxer says
LOL such backwards ignorance. The Spartans became the most powerful Greek state until the Athenians, and then the Romans, and all three embraced ubiquitous homosexuality. The Roman republic had same-sex marriage for centuries, founded the western world, and ruled for 1,000 years. Rome's big mistake was allowing Constantine to impose Christianity, which Nietzsche called slave morality. Christian Rome prohibited homosexuality, and then declined and fell.
Every society that has embraced homosexuality on a mass scale has soon after found themselves at the bottom of the food chain.
LOL such backwards ignorance. The Spartans became the most powerful Greek state until the Athenians, and then the Romans, and all three embraced ubiquitous homosexuality. The Roman republic had same-sex marriage for centuries, founded the western world, and ruled for 1,000 years. Rome's big mistake was allowing Constantine to impose Christianity, which Nietzsche called slave morality. Christian Rome prohibited homosexuality, and then declined and fell.
28
socal2
2018 Sep 10, 4:22pm
curious2 says
Embrace the ghey - or decline and fall!
It's history!
I wonder if that is what the Vatican was thinking when they embraced gay priests?
Christian Rome prohibited homosexuality, and then declined and fell.
Embrace the ghey - or decline and fall!
It's history!
I wonder if that is what the Vatican was thinking when they embraced gay priests?
29
Ceffer
2018 Sep 10, 4:32pm
Ceffer
2018 Sep 10, 4:32pm
No society 'embraces' homosexuality because homosexuality is in every human population and society. It's there whether it is 'embraced' or not.
30
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 4:33pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 4:33pm
Automan Empire says
The course in question is most definitely not science, and at best very poor fiction. Questioning currently established understanding of biology because of "heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature" is what I consider being equal to religious right.
Automan Empire says
I really do not care if this or anything else would or would not change your or anyone's else sexuality. What I have problem with is that people with no biology background try to reinvent biology based on their ideological leanings.
Science fiction
The course in question is most definitely not science, and at best very poor fiction. Questioning currently established understanding of biology because of "heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature" is what I consider being equal to religious right.
Automan Empire says
Science fiction writers imagined non-binary reproductive biologies such as two males and a nonsentient female for one example. I read these during my formative years and it didn't harm my heterosexuality but enriched my imagination.
I really do not care if this or anything else would or would not change your or anyone's else sexuality. What I have problem with is that people with no biology background try to reinvent biology based on their ideological leanings.
31
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 4:33pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 4:33pm
socal2 says
Please address that question to the Vatican, not me. IIRC, the Vatican has a 'don't ask don't tell' policy requiring gay priests to be closeted and chaste for 3 years before becoming priests. IOW, the Vatican acknowledges the need for gay priests, but insists on secrecy.
I wonder if that is what the Vatican was thinking when they embraced gay priests?
Please address that question to the Vatican, not me. IIRC, the Vatican has a 'don't ask don't tell' policy requiring gay priests to be closeted and chaste for 3 years before becoming priests. IOW, the Vatican acknowledges the need for gay priests, but insists on secrecy.
32
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 4:37pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 10, 4:37pm
curious2 says
Not only that, but they embraced also pedophilia. Ancient Greece is the origin of Western Civilization as we know it today despite all of this which apparently did not prevent their progress.
In any case, the issue here is not homosexuality as such, or if it is right or wrong (I'd say depends on religion person belongs to), but the fact that Social Justice Warrior without biology education is trying to reinvent biology.
The Spartans became the most powerful Greek state until the Athenians, and then the Romans, and all three embraced ubiquitous homosexuality.
Not only that, but they embraced also pedophilia. Ancient Greece is the origin of Western Civilization as we know it today despite all of this which apparently did not prevent their progress.
In any case, the issue here is not homosexuality as such, or if it is right or wrong (I'd say depends on religion person belongs to), but the fact that Social Justice Warrior without biology education is trying to reinvent biology.
33
mell
2018 Sep 10, 4:40pm
dr6B says
100% agreed. However they seem to be privately funded - albeit non profit - so they can exercise their free speech and for profit teaching of falsehoods.
Automan Empire saysScience fiction
The course in question is most definitely not science, and at best very poor fiction. Questioning currently established understanding of biology because of "heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature" is what I consider being equal to religious right.
Automan Empire saysScience fiction writers imagined non-binary reproductive biologies such as two males and a nonsentient female for one example. I read these during my formative years and it didn't harm my heterosexuality but enriched my imagination.
I really do not care if this or anything else would or would not change your or anyone's else sexuality. What I have problem with is that people with no biology background try to reinvent biology based on their ideological leanings.
100% agreed. However they seem to be privately funded - albeit non profit - so they can exercise their free speech and for profit teaching of falsehoods.
36
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 4:55pm
curious2
2018 Sep 10, 4:55pm
mell says
It would be appropriate to limit student loans to fields that are in high demand, e.g. if we do have a STEM shortage, or to limit payment to a % of taxable earnings. The tech sector seems to need more software engineers all the time, so it would be a reasonable investment to finance CS degrees and have the IRS collect repayment as a function of revenue. You could deputize private companies to make the loans but only the government has the power really to collect.
dr6B saysmell saysprivately funded
Student loans might not be private
True. I'm against their existence anyways.
It would be appropriate to limit student loans to fields that are in high demand, e.g. if we do have a STEM shortage, or to limit payment to a % of taxable earnings. The tech sector seems to need more software engineers all the time, so it would be a reasonable investment to finance CS degrees and have the IRS collect repayment as a function of revenue. You could deputize private companies to make the loans but only the government has the power really to collect.
37
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 10, 5:03pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 10, 5:03pm
Young Guys getting their dicks sucked by younger guys kept them from trying to sneak into the homes of Older Guys and banging their young wives. Gave them something to do while they waiting in line to get married. In return they were supposed to coach the young kids. But there's reason to suspect this was a rich person thing and not something the tradesmen or ordinary farmers did.
Regardless, An older married man still chasing after Young Dudes OR a Young Dude being the passive partner of a younger dude was considered a subject of much tittering. "Time to Grow Up". A 30-year old married man still chasing about 17-year old boys would be considered the same as a 30-year old collecting GI Joe and watching the Smurfs, today.
One of the reasons Socrates was despised was because he was married, older, but still chasing young guys togas.
In Rome it was Okay to Be Gay, but it took away from your Manhood to be the passive partner. The Romans thought that all excessive sexual activity depleted your spirit, though, whether it was male or female.
Regardless, An older married man still chasing after Young Dudes OR a Young Dude being the passive partner of a younger dude was considered a subject of much tittering. "Time to Grow Up". A 30-year old married man still chasing about 17-year old boys would be considered the same as a 30-year old collecting GI Joe and watching the Smurfs, today.
One of the reasons Socrates was despised was because he was married, older, but still chasing young guys togas.
In Rome it was Okay to Be Gay, but it took away from your Manhood to be the passive partner. The Romans thought that all excessive sexual activity depleted your spirit, though, whether it was male or female.
38
Ceffer
2018 Sep 10, 5:11pm
Ceffer
2018 Sep 10, 5:11pm
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
I thought this is what the Philistines did after a successful battle: identified the still living, sodomized them alive, then cut their throats, and enjoyed the death throes and twitches on their phallus.
The Founding Fathers were Philistines!
There is no shame in beating anyone to death and raping their still-warm asshole for entertainment, dismembering the body and feeding your family and pets with the remains, exactly as the Founding Fathers recommended.
I thought this is what the Philistines did after a successful battle: identified the still living, sodomized them alive, then cut their throats, and enjoyed the death throes and twitches on their phallus.
The Founding Fathers were Philistines!
39
NuttBoxer
2018 Sep 11, 11:39am
NuttBoxer
2018 Sep 11, 11:39am
curious2 says
Rome never allowed homo-sexuality except in the case of slaves. Just because some revisionist history propagandist wants to push gay as normal doesn't mean you should pull your pants down and assume the position. But maybe you can explain to me how being gay in the modern sense creates heirs to continue the empire..?
Thought so.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/roman-law-and-banning-passive-homosexuality-00832
LOL such backwards ignorance. The Spartans became the most powerful Greek state until the Athenians, and then the Romans, and all three embraced ubiquitous homosexuality. The Roman republic had same-sex marriage for centuries, founded the western world, and ruled for 1,000 years. Rome's big mistake was allowing Constantine to impose Christianity, which Nietzsche called slave morality. Christian Rome prohibited homosexuality, and then declined and fell.
Rome never allowed homo-sexuality except in the case of slaves. Just because some revisionist history propagandist wants to push gay as normal doesn't mean you should pull your pants down and assume the position. But maybe you can explain to me how being gay in the modern sense creates heirs to continue the empire..?
Thought so.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/roman-law-and-banning-passive-homosexuality-00832
40
CBOEtrader
2018 Sep 11, 11:45am
CBOEtrader
2018 Sep 11, 11:45am
Monogomy isnt natural.
Sex w at least 2 women at once is the only solution
Sex w at least 2 women at once is the only solution
41
NuttBoxer
2018 Sep 11, 11:49am
NuttBoxer
2018 Sep 11, 11:49am
Ceffer says
Yes, people have free choice in every society in history, but that doesn't mean cultures are ambivalent about the subject. Societies still held views on the act, the same way we do today. Such a nihilistic statement.
No society 'embraces' homosexuality because homosexuality is in every human population and society.
Yes, people have free choice in every society in history, but that doesn't mean cultures are ambivalent about the subject. Societies still held views on the act, the same way we do today. Such a nihilistic statement.
42
socal2
2018 Sep 11, 11:58am
CBOEtrader says
Maybe.
But monogamous cultures are much more successful and peaceful than the polygamous and tribal cultures where a few powerful or rich dudes hoards all the women leaving a bunch of dudes with no sexual partners and often end up like cannon fodder.
China is going to have real problems since their idiotic forced abortion program created a massive gender imbalance since many aborted their baby girls.
Monogomy isnt natural.
Maybe.
But monogamous cultures are much more successful and peaceful than the polygamous and tribal cultures where a few powerful or rich dudes hoards all the women leaving a bunch of dudes with no sexual partners and often end up like cannon fodder.
China is going to have real problems since their idiotic forced abortion program created a massive gender imbalance since many aborted their baby girls.
43
curious2
2018 Sep 11, 12:28pm
curious2
2018 Sep 11, 12:28pm
NuttBoxer says
That's false. Your own link says "declared illegal" in 390AD, i.e. during the final century of Rome's 1,000 year reign. Centuries prior to that time, Nero was married twice to men, once as the bride. Hadrian, the third of Rome's "five good emperors," was gay exclusively and devoted to Antinous; Hadrian adopted his two successors, both of whom went on to distinguish themselves as good emperors in their own right. Yale History chair John Boswell cited Cicero in writing that the Republic had same-sex marriage. Rome rose as a republic with freedom of religion, continued to prosper as a polytheistic empire, then became Christian, then declined and fell.
Prior to Rome, add the Spartans, Athenians, Thebans, etc.
These people built western civilization.
Rome never...
That's false. Your own link says "declared illegal" in 390AD, i.e. during the final century of Rome's 1,000 year reign. Centuries prior to that time, Nero was married twice to men, once as the bride. Hadrian, the third of Rome's "five good emperors," was gay exclusively and devoted to Antinous; Hadrian adopted his two successors, both of whom went on to distinguish themselves as good emperors in their own right. Yale History chair John Boswell cited Cicero in writing that the Republic had same-sex marriage. Rome rose as a republic with freedom of religion, continued to prosper as a polytheistic empire, then became Christian, then declined and fell.
Prior to Rome, add the Spartans, Athenians, Thebans, etc.
These people built western civilization.
44
Bd6r
2018 Sep 11, 3:06pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 11, 3:06pm
curious2 says
Probably due to Christianity (worship of Roman gods was made illegal in 391).
"declared illegal" in 390AD
Probably due to Christianity (worship of Roman gods was made illegal in 391).
45
Bd6r
2018 Sep 11, 3:08pm
Bd6r
2018 Sep 11, 3:08pm
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
Exactly as Family Values Protector Larry Craig ordered!
This is why AMERICA! elected a PRECEDENT! who spends all his time sucking PUTIN'S cock until his ear drums shatter, exactly as the Founding Fathers commanded.
Exactly as Family Values Protector Larry Craig ordered!
46
NDrLoR
2018 Sep 11, 3:32pm
NDrLoR
2018 Sep 11, 3:32pm
Ceffer says
This principle was also applied in the 1970's when the American Psychological Association under tremendous political pressure from the gay lobby removed homosexuality as a disorder.
No society 'embraces' homosexuality because homosexuality is in every human population and society. It's there whether it is 'embraced' or noThat's true, but it can be "embraced" by the process of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan described as "defining deviancy down": "Defining Deviancy Down (DDD) was an expression coined by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1993. Moynihan based his phrase on the theory of Emile Durkheim that there is a limit to the bad behavior that a society can tolerate before it has to start lowering its standards. In ’93, the senator applied his slogan to the “moral deregulation” that had eroded families, increased crime, and produced the mentally ill “homeless” population."
This principle was also applied in the 1970's when the American Psychological Association under tremendous political pressure from the gay lobby removed homosexuality as a disorder.
47
curious2
2018 Sep 11, 3:52pm
curious2
2018 Sep 11, 3:52pm
P N Dr Lo R says
There was pressure to uphold science. The "disorder" classification was an anachronistic presumption that had no basis in science. It had originally been intended partly to divert criminal defendants (e.g. Alan Turing) from incarceration to 'treatment', but of course the treatments were ineffective because there was no disorder to treat. Compared to Henry VIII's capital punishment on the basis of Leviticus, the chemical mutilation of Alan Turing might have seemed less bad, but either way there was no scientific basis to call him disordered.
P N Dr Lo R says
I voted for Senator Moynihan, and remember his record well. He stood among the minority of Senators who opposed the unconstitutional and badly misnamed "Defense of Marriage Act," which Bill Clinton signed in the middle of the night between sessions with a certain intern. Senator Moynihan, who had argued genuinely in defense of marriage for decades, opposed that bill because it was actually against marriage. It prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage until SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional in 2015. As for "defining deviancy down," which was mainly about crime and serious mental illness, you might want to read your list of examples, because you seem to imagine something else being on the list when it isn't actually.
American Psychological Association
There was pressure to uphold science. The "disorder" classification was an anachronistic presumption that had no basis in science. It had originally been intended partly to divert criminal defendants (e.g. Alan Turing) from incarceration to 'treatment', but of course the treatments were ineffective because there was no disorder to treat. Compared to Henry VIII's capital punishment on the basis of Leviticus, the chemical mutilation of Alan Turing might have seemed less bad, but either way there was no scientific basis to call him disordered.
P N Dr Lo R says
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I voted for Senator Moynihan, and remember his record well. He stood among the minority of Senators who opposed the unconstitutional and badly misnamed "Defense of Marriage Act," which Bill Clinton signed in the middle of the night between sessions with a certain intern. Senator Moynihan, who had argued genuinely in defense of marriage for decades, opposed that bill because it was actually against marriage. It prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage until SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional in 2015. As for "defining deviancy down," which was mainly about crime and serious mental illness, you might want to read your list of examples, because you seem to imagine something else being on the list when it isn't actually.
48
Ceffer
2018 Sep 11, 4:06pm
Ceffer
2018 Sep 11, 4:06pm
Deviance and Variance are not the same thing, especially since Deviance carries some baggage in terms of pejorative implications based on subjective reaction.
49
NDrLoR
2018 Sep 11, 6:59pm
NDrLoR
2018 Sep 11, 6:59pm
Ceffer says
"Who but a sexual radical would have failed to realize in 1969, the year of "Gay Liberation," that promiscuous anal sex, conducted with strangers, was unsanitary and dangerous and a threat to public health? Yet, gay liberation was so defined, that sex was transformative and challenged the heterosexual and monogamous norms of the Judaeo-Christian culture. Gay activists rejected the idea of integration into a normal functioning civil order, and instead maintained a defiant promiscuity in order to overthrow bourgeois morals and sexual restraints and, consequently, bourgeois standards of public hygiene."
Here's the complete text:
https://www.jpands.org/hacienda/horowitz.html
Deviance carries some baggage in terms of pejorative implications based on subjective reaction.And deservedly so. I can tell you for sure that our parents and grandparents wouldn't have had any trouble calling it deviant. But that's not the point, it comes from the larger sphere of the cultural Marxists wanting to remake society in its own image. And here again I bring on David Horowitz and his explanation of how ideology resulted in the AIDS epidemic:
"Who but a sexual radical would have failed to realize in 1969, the year of "Gay Liberation," that promiscuous anal sex, conducted with strangers, was unsanitary and dangerous and a threat to public health? Yet, gay liberation was so defined, that sex was transformative and challenged the heterosexual and monogamous norms of the Judaeo-Christian culture. Gay activists rejected the idea of integration into a normal functioning civil order, and instead maintained a defiant promiscuity in order to overthrow bourgeois morals and sexual restraints and, consequently, bourgeois standards of public hygiene."
Here's the complete text:
https://www.jpands.org/hacienda/horowitz.html
« First « Previous Comments 10 - 49 of 65 Next » Last » Search these comments
QUEER ECOLOGIES
FALL 2018
This course will address the interdisciplinary constellation of practices that aim, in different ways, to disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature…
http://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2018/09/college-course-heterosexuality-is-not.html
https://courses.newschool.edu/courses/LCST3875/7681/
Davis explained that queer ecologies is an “interdisciplinary field that examines the relationship between sexuality and nature, thinking beyond the boundaries of assuming that heterosexuality is the norm or standard.”
The field “inquires into the sexual lives of animals, plants, and bacteria—lives that are often much more strange, adaptable, and queer than anything humans do,” she elaborated. “It also seeks to critique how heterosexuality is presumed as natural.”
One example of this, Davis asserted, is how scientists often characterize plants using gender-specific language.
“We still tend to characterize plants that reproduce sexually in heterosexual terms where a male and female plant need to transfer gametes. Although this understanding of plant reproduction is not un-true, it misses the point that in order for these plants to fertilize they also rely on other species, such as bees and wasps,” she argued.
Darwin is spinning in his grave. The assault on biology, which was mostly from bat-shit crazy religious right, now is joined by bat-shit crazy left. Difference though is that MSM who is vocal in criticism of the Right, will ignore the crazies on the Left.