Over the weekend, when I've completed up to three news-related articles, I relax and write something more light. You know, out-of-the-mainstream kinda stuff. As with the idea that heterosexuality as we understand it, wasn't only created in 1934, but it was first invented in that year. It's not light, but it was out of the mainstream just the same.
This is the suggestion of BBC Future in an article entitled “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’”. Do we want to dig deeper?
The Dorland's Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.”
Two years later, in 1923 Merriam Webster's dictionary also described the term to mean “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.”
The year 1934 was the first when heterosexuality gained the meaning we're all familiar with in the present: “manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality.”
So there you are girls and boys.
The writer then said, “Whenever I tell this to people, they react with astonishment. It's not right. It certainly isn't right. It's as if heterosexuality has always “just been around.”
Perhaps that's because homosexuality's been around?
I'm not saying to go into all the science-y things, but if heterosexuality was not always present the desire to be heterosexual for instance -Where did all the people originate from that were (are) non-homosexual? I'm not being humorous.
The author then recounts the story of a “man on the street” video “from a few years ago,” in which the audience were asked if they believed homosexuals were born with sexual preferences. The responses varied, according to the writer, with the majority of respondents saying “It's a combination of nature and nurture.”
The interviewer inquired in a follow-up, which was essential in what was being described as the “experiment.” The non-sequitur question was clearly in the perspective of the interviewer:
“When did you choose to be straight?” Many were surprised and confessed, somewhat smugly that they had never considered it.
Being frightened that their prejudices were exposed, they came to immediately recognizing the videographer's clear idea that gay people are born gay just as straight people were born straight.
The message in the video appeared to suggest all the sexualities we have are “just there”; that there is no need for to explain homosexuality in the same way like we don't require an explanation for heterosexuality. It may not be a thought to the people who created the video or the millions of people who have shared the video, that they do require a reason for each.
Contrary to the writer: “Heterosexuality has not always ‘just been there.' And there's no reason to imagine it will always be.” Sorry for the inconvenience, but as well as billions of my homosexual friends — beg to differ. This is based on my prior, non-scientific observation of procreation and the creation of man.
The author then goes off on a long narrative about the differences between heterosexuality and reproductive intercourse, with which I'm not going to waste column space, but suffice it to say he views “sexual instincts” and “cultural production” as non-mutually-inclusive. What do I mean?
The article takes a deep dive into the world of sexuality in the early 20th century and into the 1800s.
And this happens as the train finally reaches the station, and not even a minute too quickly (emphasis mine):
“In the past, heterosexuality was essential since modern human beings required proof of that they are who they say and what they were who they were and were required to defend their right to be the way they were. As time goes by, the classification seems to limit the variety of ways we can comprehend our desires, loves and anxieties.”
“Heterosexuality is becoming less of a ‘high ground,’ as it was. There was a period when homosexuality was the news but we've moved on to a completely different realm, one filled with heterosexual relationships of celebrities and politicians that include photos, text messages and even the occasional video tape. Popular culture is full of images of broken gay relationships and marriages.”
“The distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality isn’t only blurred, as some interpret Kinsey's research to suggest. It's a creation, a myth and one that is outdated. Women and men are likely to continue to share different-genital sexual relations until the human race is extinct. However, heterosexuality as a marker for social standing and as an expression of lifestyle and as a way of identifying – could end up dying out before that.”
How do we begin? The piece was clearly created from a story that we've learned to recognize but not necessarily a love story. However, dear heteros, it appears “our kind” might die out prior to the time “climate change”, also known as “The existential threat of mankind” is able to take over us. (sarcasm, of course)
Really, how long will it be before this kind of insanity is introduced into America's public schools? God knows that it won't be the first instance of an attempt to teach youngsters. It's a tad leftist. It's just not enough to recognize and respect the LGBTQIA community (lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, queer, intersex, sexual orientation and transgender), the radical left must fight and ultimately eradicate heterosexuality.
The bottom line is:
Live and let live. Do not force yours on mine, and I'll certainly not make mine take over yours.