Current Events > BBC now reporting that heterosexuality is a social construct; was abnormal

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality
---

The war on straighties begins.
---

thinking is a social construct

conservatroll clickbait topic title #9476045837

That makes no sense.
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

conservatroll clickbait topic title #9476045837

It's the BBC, not Breitbart. The article is literally called "The invention of 'heterosexuality'". I didn't provide any commentary at all. You can't call literally everything that makes some aspect of liberalism look bad trolling.
---

Honestly, it seems like an entirely semantical argument.

Sexuality is the description that we attribute to our preferred sexual choices, and because that concept had to be invented, it definitely was a social construct in that regard. However, the fact that some phenomenon had no name doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Some dude who had no interest whatsoever in having sex with men, and really liked having sex with woman was just having sex. Sexual norms HAVE shifted over the centuries, which would actually lend credence to the idea that it is socially influenced, which it could be even if people don't remember choosing it.

However, I can see a possible motivation for getting rid of the concept of sexuality. If nobody has a sexuality then people are free to do whatever they want without judgment, straight people can still exclusively have sex with women. Obviously, people would have to get used to be propositioned by people of the same sex, and I think therein lies the problem. There is always going to be a concept to describe the look of utter revulsion if a straight man gets propositioned by a man and no matter what word people settle on, that'll be the new straight identifier.
---

Here's another article by the same author:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-script-for-how-to-be-gay/article37341951/

And here's an article about the writer:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/noah-michelson/brandon-ambrosino-choose-to-be-gay_b_4701934.html

Basically, he's just trying to be provocative for clicks.
---

Degenerate propaganda. I guess they want to see Western civilization crumble away.
---

lmfao

This shit is just clickbait. Even the most cuckolded liberal doesn't believe this

Pretty great read. Thanks for the link TC.

Only read about 1/3 of the way through, but it sounds more like a history of the term "heterosexual" and how society's views on sexuality have been constantly evolving. It's not saying that men and women having sex was ever abnormal or anything like that.
---

Mizznox posted...

Only read about 1/3 of the way through, but it sounds more like a history of the term "heterosexual" and how society's views on sexuality have been constantly evolving. It's not saying that men and women having sex was ever abnormal or anything like that.

Right but TC wanted his clickbait topic title knowing full well CE doesn't read shit

Mizznox posted...

Only read about 1/3 of the way through, but it sounds more like a history of the term "heterosexual" and how society's views on sexuality have been constantly evolving. It's not saying that men and women having sex was ever abnormal or anything like that.

ding ding ding

but how many people read the headline, decided it aligned with their agenda, and got outraged?
---

Mizznox posted...

Only read about 1/3 of the way through, but it sounds more like a history of the term "heterosexual" and how society's views on sexuality have been constantly evolving. It's not saying that men and women having sex was ever abnormal or anything like that.

Pretty much. Misunderstandings are going to happen when people don't read beyond the bloody headline.

I HATE social constructs. Looks like its time for me start banging dudes.
---

My take away from it, is if heterosexuality is a social construct, then by default all types of sexuality are social constructs. It's not like they're really saying anything new. Humans define their own sexuality. Huh, who would have thought?
---

Every day we drift further from God's light
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Mizznox posted...

Only read about 1/3 of the way through, but it sounds more like a history of the term "heterosexual" and how society's views on sexuality have been constantly evolving. It's not saying that men and women having sex was ever abnormal or anything like that.

Right but TC wanted his clickbait topic title knowing full well CE doesn't read shit

s0nicfan posted...

It's the BBC, not Breitbart. The article is literally called "The invention of 'heterosexuality'". I didn't provide any commentary at all. You can't call literally everything that makes some aspect of liberalism look bad trolling.

EDIT: This is literally the first sentence of the article:

The 1901 Dorlands Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.

---

Evolving into what? A gradual progression towards a sexual utopia or something? It's cyclical at best.
---

s0nicfan posted...

EDIT: This is literally the first sentence of the article:

If that is indeed true, so what? Should they lie and say that wasn't the definition? If they want to illustrate how the definition changed over the years, then that would be as good a place as any to start.

luigi13579 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

EDIT: This is literally the first sentence of the article:

If that is indeed true, so what? Should they lie and say that wasn't the definition? If they want to illustrate how the definition changed over the years, then that would perfectly illustrate it.

I'm not refuting the truthfulness of it. I'm illustrating that the author's intent was pretty clear from the first sentence.
---

s0nicfan posted...

EDIT: This is literally the first sentence of the article:

The 1901 Dorlands Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.

A man and woman loving each other and having sex wasn't abnormal. "Heterosexual" just had a different meaning when it was first coined.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I'm not refuting the truthfulness of it. I'm illustrating that the author's intent was pretty clear from the first sentence.

The 1901 Dorlands Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex. More than two decades later, in 1923, Merriam Websters dictionary similarly defined it as morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex. It wasnt until 1934 that heterosexuality was graced with the meaning were familiar with today: manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality.

I don't see what the issue is. The intent is pretty clear, but it's nothing particularly alarming. Just surprising.