4
0

College Course: Heterosexuality Is Not “Natural”


 invite response                
2018 Sep 10, 10:02am   12,697 views  65 comments

by Bd6r   ➕follow (2)   💰tip   ignore  

Another example on what student loans are spent on, courtesy of The New School, a university in New York City.

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.

Comments 1 - 40 of 65       Last »     Search these comments

1   NuttBoxer   2018 Sep 10, 10:30am  

Every society that has embraced homosexuality on a mass scale has soon after found themselves at the bottom of the food chain.
2   socal2   2018 Sep 10, 10:33am  

dr6B says
The assault on biology, which was mostly from bat-shit crazy religious right, now is joined by bat-shit crazy left.


What is a contemporary example of the "religious right" assaulting biology? All I can think of is their disgust with abortion. But that disgust can also be motivated by basic understanding of human biology.

I think it is fair to say that the same people who argue that "heterosexuality is not natural" are the same people that claim a 3rd trimester baby is just a clump of cells and should have no protected rights of being ripped limb from limb. The same people who refuse to engage in any biological arguments and just shriek "women's choice" or "women's healthcare!".
3   Bd6r   2018 Sep 10, 10:52am  

socal2 says
What is a contemporary example of the "religious right" assaulting biology?

They tried a few yrs ago to include creationist crap in TX school textbooks. Examples that they tried to introduce are that the fossil record is sketchy, that evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” , and that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. I do not know if that got into textbooks, but it was a valiant attempt by the Religious Right. Some of more rabid anti-vaccine people are also religious, albeit from fringe religions.
4   Bd6r   2018 Sep 10, 10:56am  

NuttBoxer says
Every society that has embraced homosexuality on a mass scale has soon after found themselves at the bottom of the food chain.

My concern is not about embracing gays (more gays=more pussy for straight guys, a quote from Howard Stern). Problem is that universities, supposed bastions of intellect and learning, are succumbing to absolute craziness that is not supported by any facts. Even questioning that craziness is verboten these days, punishable by exile. One reason why even debate is not allowed is because the crazies simply can not support their talking points logically.
5   NuttBoxer   2018 Sep 10, 11:00am  

dr6B says
My concern is not about embracing gays


When I say embraced, I'm talking about the lifestyle as normal, not individual people. As you stated, making assertions based on faulty logic never ends well.
6   Ceffer   2018 Sep 10, 11:01am  

Wow, I never knew that plants fist fucked each other with Crisco as part of the natural order!
7   socal2   2018 Sep 10, 11:06am  

dr6B says
They tried a few yrs ago to include creationist crap in TX school textbooks. Examples that they tried to introduce are that the fossil record is sketchy, that evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” , and that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. I do not know if that got into textbooks, but it was a valiant attempt by the Religious Right. Some of more rabid anti-vaccine people are also religious, albeit from fringe religions.


I dunno - you can probably find a few school districts in bum-fuck wherever that tried (and failed) to push creationism - but I don't think it holds a candle to the massive indoctrination all through our universities and media like you cite in your original post. Not really the same league or even the same sport IMO.

Also - most of the anti-vaccination people were crazy lefties. Lots of liberal hot beds in California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York saw increases in diseases due to lack of vaccinations.
http://time.com/27308/4-diseases-making-a-comeback-thanks-to-anti-vaxxers/
8   EBGuy   2018 Sep 10, 12:38pm  

From the The New School Gender Inclusive Housing Option Plan FAQ:
The term co-ed reflects the assumption that there are two genders: male and female. It leaves little room for progressive theories on gender, and no room for those who do not identify as their legal sex or those who are transgender. Gender inclusive housing is based on the notion that there are more than two genders—in fact, an infinite number. Providing gender inclusive housing, as opposed to co-ed housing, allows for more inclusiveness and room for diverse identities.
9   curious2   2018 Sep 10, 1:15pm  

dr6B says
Darwin is spinning in his grave.


Not about this.

DrB6, I respect you, and you know I like many of your comments, but the linked blog of "Rants and raves" might perhaps have misled you. The headline comes from the expressly ranting and raving blog, not the course description.

For example, the actual course description notes that plants use naturally a form of bestiality in order reproduce. Plants evolve ways to attract bees. Bees evolve ways to find plants. Pointing out such facts provides a "critique" (quoting the actual course description) of religious presumptions regarding what is natural.

Finding a way to teach evolutionary science to liberal arts majors would probably have pleased Darwin. Consider the target audience: teenagers highly motivated by the things that interest them. The New School found a way to reach those students and teach actual biology and evolution.
10   Bd6r   2018 Sep 10, 1:38pm  

curious2 says
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  

@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
12   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."
13   curious2   2018 Sep 10, 1:47pm  

dr6B says
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  

@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?
16   curious2   2018 Sep 10, 2:03pm  

dr6B says
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  

Automan Empire says
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  

curious2 says
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  

dr6B says
curious2 says
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.


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  

curious2 says
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  

dr6B says
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
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  

socal2 says
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
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  

socal2 says
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  

dr6B 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.


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  

NuttBoxer says
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
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  

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  

Automan Empire says
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  

socal2 says
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  

curious2 says
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
Automan Empire says
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.


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.
34   Bd6r   2018 Sep 10, 4:42pm  

mell says
privately funded

Student loans might not be private, although I agree with sentiment.
35   mell   2018 Sep 10, 4:43pm  

dr6B says
mell says
privately funded

Student loans might not be private


True. I'm against their existence anyways.
36   curious2   2018 Sep 10, 4:55pm  

mell says
dr6B says
mell says
privately 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  

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.
38   Ceffer   2018 Sep 10, 5:11pm  

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
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  

curious2 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.


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  

Monogomy isnt natural.

Sex w at least 2 women at once is the only solution

Comments 1 - 40 of 65       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions