Stream: No, Half of British Youths Aren’t “Bisexual”

Excellent article. Personally, I’ve never considered myself heterosexual because:
1: I was never forced to think about it before I had the scientific, political, and philosophical wisdom to identify the fallacy in the idea itself.
2: Now the left is forcing the argument, I simply call myself normal. For as you rightfully point out, I am normal.

I feel sorry for the children in our education system who are being forced to consider these idiocies without the wisdom needed to see past them.

I suppose the article is as correct as it can be, if you accept without question Dr Brigg’s bizarre definition of sexuality as the sexual act between a man and woman in the act of procreation. All other activities therefore being ‘disordered’ and not actual ‘sexual’ acts after all.

Or one can dismiss this idiosyncratic definition and use one that is not so… perverse? I.e., you’re engaging in sexual activity when you are receiving or giving sexual stimulation.

I wonder who first made the grand mistake of assuming that sex has anything to do with procreation. What an abominable error. Doesn’t everyone know that the primary purpose of sex is for self indulgent pleasure. Any resultant cellular conglomerate when, by accident, the self-pleasure involves heterosexual coupling is really just a minor irritant. Some weird people who subscribe to ideas of universal mysteries treat the cells as something precious when it’s obvious it doesn’t have clothes or pockets yet, and definitely can’t tie its own shoelaces.

Sadly Gary, I can’t subscribe Dr Brigg’s subtext here, which is the belief in Natural Law. A concept that carried some intellectual weight circa 1300-1890. But since then is now only retained by dogmatists of various stripes. Human sexuality is about precreation, pleasure, interpersonal relationships, even (sadly) these days, politics. It’s not just what you want it to be because you say so. That sort of attitude even most small children grow out of, eventually.

All said, the jump from the general population down to the young people is disturbing, a result of the intense indoctrination.

And this is why such people will have their heads removed by the soldiers of the black flag with relative ease. Apart from the Nordic countries, the UK is perhaps the most pathetic example of a society rotting from the inside out. So tell us, are these the “men” who will form tomorrow’s police force, army, special responders?

At this point, it’s no longer a question of whether or not some European countries beyond Albania will be politically controlled by Muslims at the end of the century, but how far east will they be able to push this dominion.

Possibly it is the opposite, the absence of centuries and then decades of “intense [Christian] indoctrination” – which has made people more honest in expressing their real feelings and desires. With regard to the elephant in the room, which is the unstated premise that human behaviour is in conflict with Natural Law, in my view the following deconstruction by Nietzsche of the concept of Natural Law, was the final nail in the coffin of this dogmatic metaphysic. The idea of Natural Law never had much standing after this, except among, of course, Ecclesiastic intellectuals. (This was published, BTW, in 1886.)

You desire to LIVE “according to Nature”? Oh, you noble Stoics, what
fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly
extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration,
without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain:
imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power–how COULD you live
in accordance with such indifference? To live–is not that just
endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing,
preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different?
And granted that your imperative, “living according to Nature,” means
actually the same as “living according to life”–how could you do
DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves
are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you:
while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature,
you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players
and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and
ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein;
you insist that it shall be Nature “according to the Stoa,” and would
like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal
glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth,
you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such
hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY…

just doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation, if half of British males are bi-sexual, does this mean that British males in toto are quarter-sexual? Or is my averaging wrong?

Bob, you’re supposed to integrate, not divide. You’re wrong if you’re right.