What are view on science's take on the cause of Homosexuality? I am neither a nueroscientist nor Homosexual so my knowledge is reduced to reading here and there, and not from empirical data. Do you believe in the roles that the INAH 2, 3 and 4 play with Homoerotic beings :eek: .

Do not hesitate to share your knowledge, even if that means reducing your self to a Religious point of view.

Boston Globe Report (http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2003/12/02/the_biological_basis_of_homosexuality/)

The much sought wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality)

N.A.R.T.H (http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html)

What are view on science's take on the cause of Homosexuality? I am neither a nueroscientist nor Homosexual so my knowledge is reduced to reading here and there, and not from empirical data. Do you believe in the roles that the INAH 2, 3 and 4 play with Homoerotic beings :eek: .

Do not hesitate to share your knowledge, even if that means reducing your self to a Religious point of view.

Boston Globe Report (http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2003/12/02/the_biological_basis_of_homosexuality/)

The much sought wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality)

N.A.R.T.H (http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html)
sience is myth. it is a way of understanding the universe. it is not 'te truth'........scientists have philosphies that are subjective

regarding 'homosexuality' te very term is an invention of 'heteosexua' (MYTH) dominator philosophy

What are view on science's take on the cause of Homosexuality? I am neither a nueroscientist nor Homosexual so my knowledge is reduced to reading here and there, and not from empirical data. Do you believe in the roles that the INAH 2, 3 and 4 play with Homoerotic beings :eek: .

Do not hesitate to share your knowledge, even if that means reducing your self to a Religious point of view.

Boston Globe Report (http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2003/12/02/the_biological_basis_of_homosexuality/)

The much sought wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality)

N.A.R.T.H (http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html)
What was the need to state outright that you are not a homosexual, pal :rolleyes:

And then they claim that there is no pressure to be 'heterosexual' in the west. :bugeye:

'Homoerotic beings' is a misleading term. You should talk about homo-erotic or rather male-erotic feelings rather than 'beings', if you wanna reach anywhere near the truth.

True, there is a tendency for heterosexuals to want to mention that they are not homosexual when discussing homosexuality.

For example, I am not a homosexual.
See? I said it too.

Obviously there is still some stigma attached to being homosexual, and for social and also reproductive purposes heterosexuals feel it necessary to state that they are straight.

But, he may have been saying that simply to state that he has no personal experience in being homosexual, and doesn't know what its like.

We could also have a discussion on whether or not stupidity is required to vote for george w. bush, and I would need to state that I would never vote for him.
I don't think gays pose any threat in contributing to a nuclear apocalypse.

As far as I'm aware, the consensus on recent research is that it continues to show support for the "sexuality is biologically determined" hypothesis.
And logically, i would assume that the "difference" would take place somewhere in the brain.
Remember I am not implying any stigma!!

..... for social and also reproductive purposes heterosexuals feel it necessary to state that they are straight.
For social and REPRODUCTIVE purposes --- on a scientific discussion internet forum --- COOL! :rolleyes:

I'm sure the originator of the thread did not have any social/ reproductive motives.

Nobody really cares here who he goes to bed with or what turns him on! And there is no way to verify the truth.

Accept it pal, there is an intense pressure on men to wear a 'heterosexual' label if they want to avoid losing their 'manhood'. NOt unlike what they made Jews wear in the Nazi camps. This vulnerability is especially increased several times when you are discussing a 'homosexual' (sic) topic.

It is basically to cash in on this pressure and use it against me, and marginalise what I have been saying, that you and a few others have been forcefully trying to force a 'homosexual' identity on me. :mad: Unsuccessfully, so far! ;)

What are view on science's take on the cause of Homosexuality?
I think before you start to pinpoint any 'cause', you should clearly define (and be willing to discuss it threadbare!) the term 'homosexuality'.

I think before you start to pinpoint any 'cause', you should clearly define (and be willing to discuss it threadbare!) the term 'homosexuality'.

Well, let me just state that you are going a bit of topic there guy.

Anyway to answer your question in my definition of "Homosexuality" I refer to Men Fucking other Men. WOW can’t get any more blatant than that? Also thinking ahead and preventing your rebuttal I specifically refer to Men who have strong Sexual "Homo Erotic" tendencies towards other man, and are willing to indulge in coitus without any thing in return but their sexual gratification.

therefore you cannot use examples as i.e. youself. Those who prostitute themselves to other beings apart from gender in order to make a buck :cool:

Well, let me just state that you are going a bit of topic there guy.
That is the problem with you guys. You're too eager to prove something, even before you understand what you are dealing with.

Anyway to answer your question in my definition of "Homosexuality" I refer to Men Fucking other Men.
I think your words reveal your motives. And unless your motives are clear, there is not much use proving anything. You just wanna do some 'gay' bashing in order to ...... what reassure yourself of your 'heterosexual' status?

Also thinking ahead and preventing your rebuttal
Don't think too too much ahead......this is not a battlefield and you're not here to protect 'heterosexuality' or downgrade 'homosexuality' --- or are you? If I'm not mistaken you're here to know more about whether the theory holds water or not, and presumably you are neutral and don't care this way or that. Am I right? In that case, you need not fear rubuttals, because you don't have a stake in the results. Right?

I specifically refer to Men who have strong Sexual "Homo Erotic" tendencies towards other man, and are willing to indulge in coitus without any thing in return but their sexual gratification.
So you're leaving all men who like other men sexually but dislike 'coitus'?

therefore you cannot use examples as i.e. youself. Those who prostitute themselves to other beings apart from gender in order to make a buck :cool:
Well, I guess that perfectly reveals your intentions. So I guess, there is no point in discussing this issue with you.....nevertheless, its my pleasure to f*** real faggots like you in the a*** (though it would be yuk! :D ), so I'll keep posting!

Well I can't blame you for there are many "people" in this world who would die for the opportunity to play games with my ass, but die deprived for my allegiance is to the all mighty vagina. Which conceals my beautiful Pagan symbol to which I pray, the Gräfenberg!

Well I can't blame you for there are many "people" in this world who would die for the opportunity to play games with my ass, but die deprived for my allegiance is to the all mighty vagina. Which conceals my beautiful Pagan symbol to which I pray, the Gräfenberg!
Enough of that childish play! Why are you wasting your time here kid with topics such as this. You should be careful. This is a bad, bad, bad world.....with many of those big dark 'dirty' men.....lurking around. So save you a** while you still have time. Don't leave the security of your pussy!

Enough of that childish play! Why are you wasting your time here kid with topics such as this. You should be careful. This is a bad, bad, bad world.....with many of those big dark 'dirty' men.....lurking around. So save you a** while you still have time. Don't leave the security of your pussy!

Yes i agree and i am one of them. Only thing that seperates me from the pervert is my innate ability to attract the opposite sex in scales of quality among quantity.

Also remember you are the one who changed the tone of My (this) thread! All i want are what other in this forum seek, answers. If you can not supply the be gone my Foe!

Also remember you are the one who changed the tone of My (this) thread!
Oh yes! and exactly how?

All i want are what other in this forum seek, answers. If you can not supply the be gone my Foe!
No you are not sincere. I asked you to define 'homosexuality' in earnest. There was no need for any insults at all. It was your own insecurity. Plus it reveals your intentions. I know better than to let you get away with it.

No you are not sincere. I asked you to define 'homosexuality' in earnest. There was no need for any insults at all. It was your own insecurity. Plus it reveals your intentions. I know better than to let you get away with it.
The only thing that you might have considered negative was that I pointed out that you'd stated outright that you are not a 'homosexual'. But this was just an extension of a long discussion that we have already had on the topic of "pressures on men to be heterosexual". If you were rattled by that statement, you should either:

a) use this opportunity to analyse what was about it that made you so disconcerted?

b). If you are unable to do the above and are unable to deal with such examinations, then you should not meddle with such topics.

R U Talking to yourself Buddha1 ??
ONCE AGAIN I will not judge you based on your Unorthodoxies rather give advise in attempt to heal your deflated ego by downplaying your Deficiencies

IT's ok to talk to yourself, as long as no one answers back!

What are view on science's take on the cause of Homosexuality? I am neither a nueroscientist nor Homosexual so my knowledge is reduced to reading here and there, and not from empirical data. Do you believe in the roles that the INAH 2, 3 and 4 play with Homoerotic beings :eek: .
[/URL]

Scientists are incompetents or liars. The cause of homosexuality is easy. It is bodily imbalance most of the time. Many guys go gay later in life if they wank too much earlier in life.

Scientists are incompetents or liars. The cause of homosexuality is easy. It is bodily imbalance most of the time. Many guys go gay later in life if they wank too much earlier in life.
Wow how intuitive, way to go!!! Continue to contribute your in-depth knowledge about Mankind’s peculiarities.

R U Talking to yourself Buddha1 ??
ONCE AGAIN I will not judge you based on your Unorthodoxies rather give advise in attempt to heal your deflated ego by downplaying your Deficiencies

IT's ok to talk to yourself, as long as no one answers back!
Like I said, you're intentions to discuss this is malafide. You don't want to arrive at any facts. Just want this forum to hide your insecurities about your sexuality.

Avoiding opposition is not a very high quality in itself. You probably want people only to support you. Sheeesh! Why do they let kids start their own threads!

Anyway, the topic is an important one, and by no way your 'personal property'. Anyone who makes an unsupported unwarranted comment will have to face questioning.

You can avoid all you want. That will only expose you. Plus, who really cares about you. Others can read my posts, and that will serve my purpose.

Scientists are incompetents or liars. The cause of homosexuality is easy. It is bodily imbalance most of the time. Many guys go gay later in life if they wank too much earlier in life.
You forgot the Israel angle to it. It is a deep rooted Israeli conspiracy to finish off the American race:D.

sience is myth. it is a way of understanding the universe. it is not 'te truth'........scientists have philosphies that are subjective

regarding 'homosexuality' te very term is an invention of 'heteosexua' (MYTH) dominator philosophy
See, how they are not going to listen when you tell them the truth.

The whole idea of science to do 'research' on so-called 'homosexuality' is to --- like you put it --- 'other' the same-sex behaviour/ bonds. So that they can continue to strengthen the heterosexual identity. It needs continuous support from powerful institutions like science because --- well, it is an artificial identity which the majority don't want if left on their own. It's an identity based on artificial man-made divisions.

The whole idea of research on 'homosexuality' (sic) is to 'prove' that men who like men are indeed way different than 'heterosexual' in every possible way. And that they are feminine or much closer to women. Science will try to prove that by hook and crook -- and the powerful players on both side of the homosexual-heterosexual divide will lap up the findings -- leaving no scope for a real discussion.

Proving 'homosexuals' (sic) to be 'different' serves an important part of the heterosexual identity --- it helps keep up the pressure on straight men, it helps to continue to marginalise and 'feminise' same-sex bonds (you have to see it in the light that femininity in men is already denigrated even more than same-sex bonds) and it helps to keep up the enlarged ego of a minority of men who are torch bearers of the heteroseuxal ideology and who are extremely dependent on/ addicted to the social power it brings.

Look at all such researches in the recent years. They spend millions of dollars/ pounds to find out what --- that 'homosexuals' (sic) have different brains which match those of women --- and of course different from those of men; that they react to pheromones differently than heterosexual (read real) men, that they have a rare gene, that they respond to loud noise differently (believe me there has been a study to that effect too!)......and so on!

And what useful purpose do these studies serve --- even if we were to believe that they are all true and honest? What useful insight do they give us about human sexuality or even the cause of the so-called disease (now politely called an anomaly) called 'homosexuality'? Well, nothing! It just helps some heterosexually identified people (even though they are not really devoid of sexual need for men) like Art of war, who feel 'powerful', 'proud' and 'superior' by flashing these researches as proof of their being real men.

Why else would a person who claims he has no sexual attraction for men, and who has no real interest in discussing the issue thread bare, (and his intentions are also clear from his recent posts) want to start a thread about the research on 'homosexuality and anterior hypothalamus'.

And the fact of the matter is that these studies are all an eyewash. They are professionally unethical and dishonest. Often they start with wrong assumptions (and no one questions them is a big help!) --- e.g., they assume that the socio-political 'gay' identity is a biological one. And they achieve their results with wrong sampling --- e.g. conducting research only on feminine gendered males --- just like they did in the past when they proved 'homosexuality' (sic) to be a mental disease by taking their samples from psychological clinics and asylums.

You will find what you seek. Science thou are great!

You forgot the Israel angle to it. It is a deep rooted Israeli conspiracy to finish off the American race:D.

Sure it is. Who controls USA media, corporations, politicians and judges? Israel.

When something goes wrong, the people at the top always take the blame. Whether they actually did it or not, they are in charge, so they take responsibility.

Sure it is. Who controls USA media, corporations, politicians and judges? Israel.

When something goes wrong, the people at the top always take the blame. Whether they actually did it or not, they are in charge, so they take responsibility.
Perhaps you can convince the scientific community to look at this new cause of 'homosexuality'. They are looking for all kind of wierd ideas. :D

The cause of homosexuality is easy. It is bodily imbalance most of the time. So getting really drunk so you fall over will do it?I didn't know that.
Many guys go gay later in life if they wank too much earlier in life.Is that what occured in your case?

So getting really drunk so you fall over will do it?I didn't know that.
You didn't? It's an age old way to become (or to make your pal) part time 'gay' --- and it works everytime! :D

Get a drink, talk about girls and jerk off with your pal because there are no girls available at the moment. ;)

Perhaps you can convince the scientific community to look at this new cause of 'homosexuality'. They are looking for all kind of wierd ideas. :D

Don't have to. They already have. I can tell by the studies being released. I said I have been talking about this for 5 years. I sent messages to scientists and the FDA. There are 3 new scientific studies that in a roundabout way relate to what I talk about.

Maybe it is Karma. Maybe we all have the same idea at the same time. Maybe someone read my stuff and got inspired. No way to really know.

So getting really drunk so you fall over will do it?I didn't know that.


Are you an adult? You know your point is silly. Why say something purposefully foolish?

I have been purposely foolish to highlight your own unintentional foolishness. I did not expect you to understand or appreciate it, for I was laughing at you, not with you.
Since you do not appear to value my opinion, these remarks should not cause you even momentary discomfort.

I have been purposely foolish to highlight your own unintentional foolishness. I did not expect you to understand or appreciate it, for I was laughing at you, not with you.
Since you do not appear to value my opinion, these remarks should not cause you even momentary discomfort.

You can laugh all you want. Doesn't make you right. If your mind opens at some point, and you wish to discuss the issue, let me know.

Otherwise, you can sit in your chair in front of your computer and laugh all you want. I am easy to get along with. Go ahead and laugh away.

Scientists are incompetents or liars. The cause of homosexuality is easy. It is bodily imbalance most of the time. Many guys go gay later in life if they wank too much earlier in life.
:rolleyes: Oh that's great. Now there are two lunatic crackpots crapping on about homosexuality.<P>

:rolleyes: Oh that's great. Now there are two lunatic crackpots crapping on about homosexuality.<P>
I don't see how what Happeh is crapping about is any more crappy than the 'anterior hypothalamus' or theory or "PPI" or 'pheromones' theory. Just because the other crap has got the sanction of 'science' and carry fancy sounding names don't make them any better! :(

Scientists are incompetents or liars. The cause of homosexuality is easy. It is bodily imbalance most of the time. Many guys go gay later in life if they wank too much earlier in life.
What Happeh is talking about are myths circulated by religion in the past. 'Anterior Hypothalamus' and "PPI", are myths created by modern science. They both serve to persecute sex between men. But admittedly, Science takes the cake.

This thread started rather promising with even a correctly spelled thread title and a promise of scientific content. But now it is time to sit back and brake out the popcorn and watch the comedy unfold.

This thread started rather promising with even a correctly spelled thread title and a promise of scientific content. But now it is time to sit back and brake out the popcorn and watch the comedy unfold.
You want some scientific hogwash?

Let's talk about another study which tries to forcefully tries to concretise this artificial divide, by openly and blatantly misrepresenting and misinterpreting their own finding. And the media lapping up to strengthen its heterosexualisation agenda. (I'm beginning to believe --- also based on the way western media is behaving in my own country --- that media is the biggest player in the heterosexualisation of a society):

So this study seeks to measure PPI (for details click here) (http://ktvu-tvhealth.ip2m.com/index.cfm?pt=itemDetail&item_id=105251&site_cat_id=87) --- the Pre-pulse inhibition which is believed not to be a learned response and can really prove for us eventually, that 'gays' are indeed different. A little manipulation here and there and it should do the trick.

So, this guy Quazi Rahman, together with his team gathers a huge amount of sample --- commensurate with the importance of the study he is undertaking --- all of 59 people including homos, heteros, lesbian butches and heterosexual (sic) women.

As for his collection of 'homosexual' (sic) men, no doubt (considering the final analysis he gave) most of his collection included the typical feminine gendered males that homosexual community is made up of, although he does not mention their gender. Science does not give gender, importance. It's not your gender that makes you behave differnently ---- sheesh, it is your sexual orientation (sic) that does. Of course the same does not apply to the 'heterosexual' samples. They will never include a transvestite or a transexual heterosexual in their 'heterosexual' sample. Well, after all 'trans' have a different 'social' identity, so here they are ruled out because of their feminne gender.

And it really does not matter, if the macho 'heterosexual' guy they picked after confirming that his behaviour tallies with Rambo of the movie fame, after the study, picks up a guy from the 'homosexual' sample for some fun during the weekend, after giving his girlfriend an excuse. Of course, he'd just be experimenting.

So, after all this hard work and 'careful' sampling, what result do they get: --- That lesbians are greatly different from 'heterosexual' women, but (the following underlined sentence is a link)no statistically significant difference between gay (sic) and heterosexual (sic) men (http://www.borngayprocon.org/pop/Studies.htm) . (What! inspite of all the careful sampling of fem queens and macho heteros!)

So you'd think that this would mean that they cannot go ahead with their all important objective of giving scientific stamp to the 'othering' and feminising of same-sex behaviour as yet --- not on the basis of this theory. But you're are mistaken.

His own results don't prevent the Rahman guy from giving scientific approval to this divide. He gives sweeping generalisations and talks about, ".....a brain basis of sexual orientation", and goes on to claim in the published paper that his study supports the "vast amount of growing evidences" (apparently his are added to the heap!) that show that 'homosexuals' (sic) are different from 'heterosexuals' (sic).

And although his research proves nothing of the sort for men, he quickly jumps to his conclusion (which he had soooo expected from his studies but was disappointed) that : (in his own words!) ".....on those occasions that gays and lesbians do present with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that are typical of the opposite sex," Rahman says. Gay men, for example, may be more likely to suffer depression, anxiety and eating disorders than their straight counterparts, while lesbians may be more vulnerable to substance abuse than heterosexual women."

If you're wondering how his research establishes this, he is just forwarding his opinions along with his research work so that his opinions also get publicity side by side.

In the meantime, if you ever feel depressed or anxious or develop eating disorders when you're stressed, do examine the possibility that you could be gay --- the scientific opinion heavily points to the possibility.

And 'real' men, you know what is the 'manly' stuff to go to a psychiatrist with --- why of course substance abuse! That is the latest test of your masculinity!

His research also 'establishes' (God knows how!) that 4% of men and 3% of women are 'homosexuals'.

The best part is that in the end he has the cheeks to sermon the following:
"It's important not to draw too many generalizations. "It's not that the gay brain is like the heterosexual brain of the opposite sex. It seems to be a mosaic of male and female typical traits," Rahman says. "Because we're looking at humans, thing are always more complicated that you would expect."

Science thou are indeed great!

I've edited the above, so pl. read again. The underlined sentencess refer to links.

Even NARTH agrees that these scientists are dishonestly trying to ascribe biological basis of gender onto a so-called biological basis of 'sexuality'.

According to this link (http://file:///d:/Documents%20and%20Settings/ALOK1/My%20Documents/evidences/evidence%20that%20researches%20are%20on%20feminine %20women.htm):

The factors identified in this and other studies seem to be factors that masculinize females and feminize males, which results in gender-atypical development.

Yet an October 6, 2003 article by reporter Amanda Gardner in Health Day News, and trumpeted on the internet by Yahoo, mischaracterizes the study's scope and findings with the headline, "Startling Study Says People May Be Born Gay."

My own comment: If they compared 'heterosexual' transgendered people with who they call 'homosexuals' they'll find them sharing the same biological traits.

And if they compared what they call 'heterosexuals' (whether or not this category really exists) with macho 'gays' (sic) they will again find no difference.

So, after all this hard work and 'careful' sampling, what result do they get: --- That lesbians are greatly different from 'heterosexual' women, but no statistically significant difference between gay (sic) and heterosexual (sic) men . (What! inspite of all the careful sampling of fem queens and macho heteros!)
Yet this small number of difference that they encoutnered can easily be noticed in any two groups, however similar! E.g., you could have divided the 'heterosexual' group into two, and done the study again. Chances are that the results of one of the groups will be slightly different from the other.

So this study seeks to measure PPI (for details click here) (http://ktvu-tvhealth.ip2m.com/index.cfm?pt=itemDetail&item_id=105251&site_cat_id=87) --- the Pre-pulse inhibition which is believed not to be a learned response and can really prove for us eventually, that 'gays' are indeed different. A little manipulation here and there and it should do the trick.


You don't believe in science and yet you quote a scientific study to support your beliefs.

btw:
It's important not to draw too many generalizations

Do you know why scientists often include such a sentence? It's because of people like you.

You don't believe in science and yet you quote a scientific study to support your beliefs.
Spuriousmonkey, I'm sure you're not so much dumbo or ignorant about my viewpoint as you're faking to be. Are you deliberately trying to mislead. Of course I'm not supporing the above scientists. I'm claiming that the scientists are misleading us. I have quoted the study only so that the reader can see for himself what I'm saying --- of how scientists sometimes mislead.

Have you really read the piece above before shooting your post?

Do you know why scientists often include such a sentence? It's because of people like you.
Sure, I was not the one who made the a very generalised claim like "Homosexuality is a failure biologically" and then slipped off when asked to prove! That's generalisation.

And if you noticed, the scientist quoted above while cautioning against generalising --- goes off to do exactly the same.

I think before you start to pinpoint any 'cause', you should clearly define (and be willing to discuss it threadbare!) the term 'homosexuality'.
homosexuality literaly means "same sex"

Scientists are incompetents or liars. The cause of homosexuality is easy. It is bodily imbalance most of the time. Many guys go gay later in life if they wank too much earlier in life.
this is the same guy who, in another thread, has said "masturbation causes blindness and loss of limbs". he also refers to "western doctors" a term i find racist.

Perhaps you can convince the scientific community to look at this new cause of 'homosexuality'. They are looking for all kind of wierd ideas. :D
they look for answers not "weird" ideas. and unlike religion their answers can be proven to anyone with an i.q. over 100

Don't have to. They already have.
i am personaly calling you a liar happeh. you have not provided any proof whatsoever. don't call me on this because i will post your bullshit from another thread.

homosexuality literaly means "same sex"
Pl. don't mind the hair splitting, it's important to make my point.

If 'homosexuality' means 'same sex' then an all boys school can be described as a homosexual school. And two 'heterosexuals' (sic) standing at the bus stop talking to each other can also be said to be engaged in a 'homosexual' talk. ;)

I think you mean sex between two people of the same-sex?

Can you elaborate on the following:

1. What is meant by the term same-sex?

2. Is the fact that two men have sex important to the definition of 'homosexuality', or that they have a sexual desire for same-sex which is important?

- specifically, if a man has sex only with women but desires a man secretly, will that make him a homosexual or heterosexual?

- In the above example, what if he really dislikes sex with women or doesn't like it much but does it for social reasons?

they look for answers not "weird" ideas. and unlike religion their answers can be proven to anyone with an i.q. over 100
As long as they are willing to answer questions? Not hide like Ophiolite. They should accept their responsibility to people and come down from their high pedestal.

Can you elaborate on the following:

1. What is meant by the term same-sex?

2. Is the fact that two men have sex important to the definition of 'homosexuality', or that they have a sexual desire for same-sex which is important?

- specifically, if a man has sex only with women but desires a man secretly, will that make him a homosexual or heterosexual?

- In the above example, what if he really dislikes sex with women or doesn't like it much but does it for social reasons?
1. male-male or female-female
2. i have no idea i am not homosexual
2a see above
2b see above

As long as they are willing to answer questions? Not hide like Ophiolite. They should accept their responsibility to people and come down from their high pedestal.
has ophiolite chewed your ass? poor baby.
did you learn anything useful?

has ophiolite chewed your ass? poor baby.
did you learn anything useful?
I want him or somebody else to come and chew my ass off.......and show me how I or a decade of my work is wrong. But Ophiolite is scared stiff. He prefers to hide behind his scientific degrees and shout 'liar', 'liar' from time to time --- then quickly hides again! :rolleyes:

i am personaly calling you a liar happeh. you have not provided any proof whatsoever. don't call me on this because i will post your bullshit from another thread.

Go ahead. You act like I have something to be ashamed of. I stand behind what I say 100%.

You act like I have something to be ashamed of. You do.
I stand behind what I say 100%.That's what you should be ashamed of: your inability to learn.

from the thread: masturbation is for losers
Originally Posted by SnakeLord
So, once you're done with all the verbal diarrhea any chance you could provide some evidence for your claims?
”

happehs response
Why? You call what I say verbal diarrhea. Why would I cooperate with you?

Originally Posted by SnakeLord
Justify this statement. Why "must" I trust you?
”

happehs response
If you are interested in learning


snakelord
As a result of that, when you make claims you need to provide evidence if you expect to get anywhere.

Do you understand?
”

happehs response
What I understand is you do a good impersonation of a dick.


Originally Posted by SnakeLord
But hey, you don't even have to talk to me. Just provide the evidence and we're done.
”

happehs response
I don't think so.


Originally Posted by Bells
Oh man. This is the kind of crap that mothers tell their little boys to stop them from playing with their willy. But since you've made this highly medical and scientific claim , where's your proof? Medical and scientific journal article kind of proof?
”

happehs response
Not crap. No scientific journals.


Originally Posted by Bells
LOL! Please show me scientific proof that extensive masturbation can cause a person to become gay and/or cause the so called 'invisible' symptoms that you so stupidly claimed.
”

happehs response
They are only invisible to the untrained.


3 pages later

happeh
Everyone that is certain I am wrong just kind of ignores the scientific study connecting the penis, thru erectile dysfunction, with the heart.
”

james r.
Can you please post some references, so I can read more about these links?


Originally Posted by James R
Can you please post some references, so I can read more about these links?

Thanks.
”

happeh response
I didn't keep the link, just the story. I saw it pop up on Google again. If I see it, I will try to remember to keep a link for you

This was not the evidence I was really talking about. I was talking about examining pictures of real people so people could see for themselves what symptoms I am discussing. I put this news article up because I chanced upon it.


Originally Posted by SnakeLord
I will happily believe you if you can show evidence for your claims. What surveys have you conducted, what tests have you done etc?.
”

happehs response
No you won't. You said you will not inspect pictures and make judgements or reach conclusions about them. You want some government or scientific study to reassure you

snakelord
For the fourth time now: Photos in this instance are of no value. They cannot be considered as evidence that masturbation causes blindness etc. You have already agreed to this, so you're now just contradicting yourself.
”

happehs response
Look Bozo. You are lying and you don't even see it. See those two statements above? They are yours. Now follow this very carefully. First you say.

"I will accept proof from anyone - yes even you"

Then you say, remember, pay close attention

"Photos in this instance are of no value."


and i had 4 pages left. look happeh if you want to play this kind of silly ass game then keep your bullshit out of the science forums. restrict it to the religion forums.

I stand behind what I say 100%.
you are the only person on this board that does
even the religious people here will say your claims are horseshit
a question for you
are you and buddha related somehow?

Nice compilation Leopold. I am sure Happeh's response will be entrancing.

That's what you should be ashamed of: your inability to learn.

That's what you should be ashamed of: your inability to learn.

you are the only person on this board that does
even the religious people here will say your claims are horseshit
a question for you
are you and buddha related somehow?

Other than he is apparently taking the way I speak and using it in his own personal interests, no.

Like I said in the other post, all trailblazers are losers, crazies, and charlatans.

Until the slow people catch up.

Nice compilation Leopold. I am sure Happeh's response will be entrancing.

There is nothing to respond to. It is a list of what i and other people said to each other. I don't see the purpose.

all trailblazers are losers, crazies, and charlatans.
All Frenchmen are Europeans.
This does not mean all Europeans are Frenchmen.

from wiki:

Today, modern medicine recognises that there is no significant harm (short term or long term) caused by the practice of masturbation and regards it as a normal part of human sexuality to the point where the above medical studies suggest it has health benefits.

trailblaze this happeh

Happeh is right. If you masturbate so hard that your penis falls off it is considered to be unhealthy in the medical world.

But that still doesn't make you gay. Just penisless.

from wiki:

Today, modern medicine recognises that there is no significant harm (short term or long term) caused by the practice of masturbation and regards it as a normal part of human sexuality to the point where the above medical studies suggest it has health benefits.

trailblaze this happeh

People at one time thought the world was flat. Read your history books.

Spurious,

I've heard that semen has lots of zinc in it. Does that mean that if you masturbate too much, it can result in zinc deficiency (and then a weakened immune system)?

from wiki

Contrary to popular myth, masturbation does not cause blindness. There is some basis, however, to the myth: zinc is required both to transport vitamin A from the liver to the retina and is excreted in relatively high amount in semen. Thus, it is not inconceivable that in zinc-deficient or vitamin A-deficient environments excessive male masturbation could have caused night blindness (in which case sexual intercourse has an equal probability of causing blindness). Given a normal contemporary diet, however, this is extremely unlikely to happen. There is also the more modern issue of staring at a computer screen while watching pornography for extended periods of time as the pupils tend to dilate during arousal.

The above is an interesting bit of information Leopold.

'Masturbation' is a good example of how the exploits of religion --- which forced people to believe in 'god's' words rather than trust their own instincts, and whose ulterior motives were exposed by 'science' --- forced humans to the other extreme, i.e., 'science'. Only the other extreme has finally replaced religion, and it also takes them away from their own nature --- it takes away their capability to experience and see things for themselves rather than refer to what the 'institution' (science or religion) tells us.

Here, the interests of the 'scientific' institution clashes with that of 'religion', because the former wants to 'liberate', popularise and strengthen male-female, non-reproductive, casual sex (i.e. heterosexuality), and freeing masturbation from religious restrictions/ myths is an important step!. So 'science' takes humans away from their instincts in the opposite direction of what religion did. (Edited line): It tells men that all their feelings of pain or spells of memoery loss or weakness is not real. It is all in the mind.

Both religion and science ignore how men actually feel about masturbation. Because the truth is somewhere between what religion and science tell us.

In the case of male-male sexual bonds, science shares the motivation of religion --- to force it out of the mainstream. Only, science wants (and is capable of) a near complete marginalisation (which religion could not do) and its approach is also quite different, sometimes even contradictory with religion. At other times its strikingly similar.

U know? If I had a clue about what you were saying, I would take it apart.

I've edited the above post, so pl. read it again.

Both religion and science ignore how men actually feel about masturbation. Because the truth is somewhere between what religion and science tell us.


well i can tell you this, when it comes to wanking your crank i am definetly the gold medal holder. i have yet to experience any adverse effects such as blindness arms falling off or dieing from aids.

In the case of male-male sexual bonds,
as far as this goes they are human,they have rights just like you and me
i am not a homosexual so i cannot really discuss it

as far as this goes they are human,they have rights just like you and me
i am not a homosexual so i cannot really discuss it
O.K., O.K., we know you're not homosexual ;) And I'm not talking about homosexuals. I'm talking about straight men.

It's not about THEM. It's about US!

what about us.

what about us.
It's about naturally straight men.

i am not a scientist, so with that in mind
what about naturaly straight men ( i also assume this applies to women )

i am not a scientist, so with that in mind
what about naturaly straight men ( i also assume this applies to women )
Naturally straight men applies to women!!??? :confused: :D

It's a loooong long story. I'll direct you to this thread. Here (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50083) !

Naturally straight men applies to women!!??? :confused: :D
Joking apart, yes the same thing also applies to women, although its social manifestations and what has happened to it after thousands of years of marriage and now heterosexuality is not something I know much about. My work experience is only with men.

But all the indications from the western heterosexual society are that given the overly pro-woman nature of heterosexual societies, straight women are becoming more and more 'free' to explore their same-sex needs/ desires.

the western heterosexual society
buddha people are the same every where.
a "western" fag is identical to a "eastern" fag
same goes for hetero
about your link, you really don't expect me to read all that do you? i will refer to it though.
the only difference between male and female is the presence of a y chromosome instead of x (i might have x and y backwards)

buddha people are the same every where.
I agree. 'Basically' human beings are the same everywhere, but the culture/ system that we live in shapes the outer expression of that 'basic' and that makes us different.
a "western" fag is identical to a "eastern" fag
same goes for hetero
There are some key differences between how the term 'homo' is seen by our two cultures (sorry I can't use the word 'fag' as you do, it reflects your own hostility towards the issue, which keeps you from being objective!).

You have a concept of 'sexual orientation' which we know nothing of. But we have a strong concept of 'gender orientation' which you have discarded from your society.

We do have people of 'homo' description in our traditional country. But we don't have any 'heteros' here. If you call someone a 'hetero' he may think you're calling him a 'fag'!

several years ago, in our workshops with young men across our traditional country when we asked them about a sit-com 'queen' character who was a die-hard heterosexual (kept chasing women all the time!) --- they invariably defined him as a 'homo'. When we pointed out that he only chases women, not men, it did not made any difference to their perception of the character as a 'homo'. For them 'homo' meant feminine.

On being asked if two masculine men who have exclusive sex with each other (for men to have sex with men on the sly --- in addition to their sexual relations with women is common in our country), can they be described as 'homo', men would vehemently say 'no'.
about your link, you really don't expect me to read all that do you? i will refer to it though.
I don't really. See they used to be several much smaller threads discussing one main (different) theme each, there was a big plot to get them merged so make them unwieldy (that's why I've disowned them!).
the only difference between male and female is the presence of a y chromosome instead of x (i might have x and y backwards)
That's what the heterosexual society teaches us. And that's why I call the heterosexual society a queer society.

Men and women are way too different from each other. So much so that if an outer space being watches them, he would think them to be two different species. If women are from venus, men are from mars.

Men and women are not supposed to be raised in or live in common/ mixed-sex/ heterosexual groups. These groups are particularly anti-men given the heterosexual nature of the western society.

1. male-male or female-female
How do you define a male?

2. i have no idea i am not homosexual
2a see above
2b see above
O.K., O.K., understood. You're a heterosexual, macho, real man!

But you are here to discuss 'homosexuality' and we can make educated guesses, can't we?

I agree. 'Basically' human beings are the same everywhere, but the culture/ system that we live in shapes the outer expression of that 'basic' and that makes us different.

There are some key differences between how the term 'homo' is seen by our two cultures (sorry I can't use the word 'fag' as you do, it reflects your own hostility towards the issue, which keeps you from being objective!).

You have a concept of 'sexual orientation' which we know nothing of. But we have a strong concept of 'gender orientation' which you have discarded from your society.

We do have people of 'homo' description in our traditional country. But we don't have any 'heteros' here. If you call someone a 'hetero' he may think you're calling him a 'fag'!

several years ago, in our workshops with young men across our traditional country when we asked them about a sit-com 'queen' character who was a die-hard heterosexual (kept chasing women all the time!) --- they invariably defined him as a 'homo'. When we pointed out that he only chases women, not men, it did not made any difference to their perception of the character as a 'homo'. For them 'homo' meant feminine.

On being asked if two masculine men who have exclusive sex with each other (for men to have sex with men on the sly --- in addition to their sexual relations with women is common in our country), the men can be described as 'homo', men would vehemently say 'no'.
about your link, you really don't expect me to read all that do you? i will refer to it though.
I don't really. See they used to be several much smaller threads discussing one main theme, there was a big plot to get them merged so make them unwieldy (that's why I've disowned them!).

That's what the heterosexual society teaches us. And that's why I call the heterosexual society a queer society.

Men and women are way too different from each other. So much so that if an outer space being watches them, he would think them to be two different species. If women are from venus, men are from mars.

Men and women are not supposed to be raised in or live in common/ mixed-sex/ heterosexual groups. These groups are particularly anti-men given the heterosexual nature of the western society.

the only reason i used "fag" is because i type with one finger so i try to be breif. i will use gay from now on

expain "gender orientation". gender to me means male or female

you don't have any male-female relationships where you come from?? (hetero means male-female)

without male-female relationships then our society would be shot in the ass

in my opinion this is an example of "clash of cultures"

How do you define a male?


O.K., O.K., understood. You're a heterosexual, macho, real man!

But you are here to discuss 'homosexuality' and we can make educated guesses, can't we?

i define male as xx chromosome in humans (it might be xy)

yes i can make an educated guess

expain "gender orientation". gender to me means male or female.
Our sex identity consists of two parts --- outer and inner sex. Western science acknowledges only one --- the outer sex, but then who said science was perfect. Traditional knowledge (which is a broader concept than science!) acknowledged both of them.

Outer sex refers to our sexual organs, i.e. male, female or both (hermaphrodite).

But apart from and irrespective of our outer sex, we also have an inner-sex, i.e. a sense of being (predominanlty) male or female. This inner sex is what really constitutes our natural gender. This inner-sex (gender) is determined by biology not by culture. Gender can be described as masculine, feminine or both (meterosexual).

The above described natural gender. However, the west (I think its superficial and acknowledges only that which can be seen!) considers gender to be only social (there is also a thing called social gender --- it is how we shape our natural gender into a social identity and is influenced by social mores (where society makes heterosexuality a must for men to be seen as 'men' socially, men will stick a heterosexual label on themselves as an assertion of their masculinity.)

So 'gender orientation' refers to whether you feel predominantly a male (masculine) or female (feminine) or both (meterosexual) from inside, irrespective of whether you are a man, woman or a hermaphrodite.

This is different from 'sexual orientation', which refers to the (claimed) sexual interests of people, supposedly (but not in practise) unrelated to their gender orientation.


you don't have any male-female relationships where you come from?? (hetero means male-female)
Only for you westerns does hetero mean male-female!

We have male-female marriages more than we have male-female relationships. And people don't see their sexual interests as a matter of identity.

Just like you may be a 'rice' eater or a 'wheat' eater, but you don't see that as a matter of identity. For most like to eat different things at different times.

without male-female relationships then our society would be shot in the ass
:D

You don't need male-female relationships to procreate. You just need male-female sex, and preferably into marriage.
in my opinion this is an example of "clash of cultures"
You said it! But the western culture is ruining ours by invading our media space --- in a one way globalisation process (from west to east, no actual interaction, just invasion).

i define male as xx chromosome in humans (it might be xy)
Chromosomes by themselves don't make us male or female. They are the deciding factor.

yes i can make an educated guess
Good! :)

Chromosomes by themselves don't make us male or female. They are the deciding factor.
It is our outer sexual organ (penis/ testicles) that makes us a male. But it is our inner-sex (male) that makes us a 'man', as far as nature is concerned --- to be more precise a masculine man, as opposite a feminine man.

Now my point is that male is by itself not a complete basic biological or social identity, because it only refers to the outer-sex and leaves out a very important part of our biological sex --- our inner sex, or gender.

To people their inner-sex is much more important than their outer sex. This is apparent in the extreme cases where the outer sex and inner sex don't match at all. Then males see their outer sex a problem, not their inner sex. They are what their inner sex is, not what their outer sex is.

In case of masculine men, it becomes very important for them to be recognised for their natural gender (masculine) --- something that the society manipulates to get the desired (sexual) behaviour from men, by artificially defining what is masculine and what feminine (something I call social masculinity).

*****

Therefore, men are actually divided into 'masculine gendered' men and 'feminine' gendered males. Meterosexual men may be either classed with masculine gendered men or with the feminine gendered men or may even be seen as a separate category depending upon the social mores of a society.

Masculine gendered men and feminine gendered males are two different gender/ sex identities, and they are not 'same'. Any relationship between the members of the two group cannot be considered to be the 'same'. Therefore in most traditional societies sex between men and transvestites etc. was considered equivalent to sex with women (heterosexual).

Therefore the whole concept of 'same-sex' is flawed, if it ignores the gender of people and consider people of two genders as the 'same'.

Am I making myself clear?

Our sex identity consists of two parts --- outer and inner sex. Western science acknowledges only one --- the outer sex, but then who said science was perfect. Traditional knowledge (which is a broader concept than science!) acknowledged both of them.

Outer sex refers to our sexual organs, i.e. male, female or both (hermaphrodite).

But apart from and irrespective of our outer sex, we also have an inner-sex, i.e. a sense of being (predominanlty) male or female. This inner sex is what really constitutes our natural gender. This inner-sex (gender) is determined by biology not by culture. Gender can be described as masculine, feminine or both (meterosexual).

The above described natural gender. However, the west (I think its superficial and acknowledges only that which can be seen!) considers gender to be only social (there is also a thing called social gender --- it is how we shape our natural gender into a social identity and is influenced by social mores (where society makes heterosexuality a must for men to be seen as 'men' socially, men will stick a heterosexual label on themselves as an assertion of their masculinity.)

So 'gender orientation' refers to whether you feel predominantly a male (masculine) or female (feminine) or both (meterosexual) from inside, irrespective of whether you are a man, woman or a hermaphrodite.

This is different from 'sexual orientation', which refers to the (claimed) sexual interests of people, supposedly (but not in practise) unrelated to their gender orientation.



Only for you westerns does hetero mean male-female!

We have male-female marriages more than we have male-female relationships. And people don't see their sexual interests as a matter of identity.

Just like you may be a 'rice' eater or a 'wheat' eater, but you don't see that as a matter of identity. For most like to eat different things at different times.


:D

You don't need male-female relationships to procreate. You just need male-female sex, and preferably into marriage.

You said it! But the western culture is ruining ours by invading our media space --- in a one way globalisation process (from west to east, no actual interaction, just invasion).

science is the same eveywhere there is no such thing as "Western science"

what do you mean "sense of being"

gender means male or female, has nothing to do with "inside"

sexual orientation is homosexual or heterosexual

your last statement provides insight. from it i can tell you have issues about american liberties. in america if you are gay you are not persecuted for it. as a matter of fact most of the people on this board will say they have some kind of problem with them but also believe they are human and have rights.

define "invadeing our media spce"

science is the same eveywhere there is no such thing as "Western science"

what do you mean "sense of being"

gender means male or female, has nothing to do with "inside"

sexual orientation is homosexual or heterosexual

your last statement provides insight. from it i can tell you have issues about american liberties. in america if you are gay you are not persecuted for it. as a matter of fact most of the people on this board will say they have some kind of problem with them but also believe they are human and have rights.

define "invadeing our media spce"
That was too quick a response for something that needs a lot of reflection.

Unless you consider what I'm saying you cannot reject them. The idea is not to 'disprove' the other for the sake of it. The idea should be to learn new things --- from the experiences of others.

You're too quick to dismiss everything. Read what I've said carefully and analyse it.

science is the same eveywhere there is no such thing as "Western science"
Science has been 'invented' by the west. Whatever we know of science or its procedures or fundamentals, has been given to us by the west --- for good or bad.
what do you mean "sense of being"
To understand this you have to look at the extreme case where the outer sex and inner sex are totally different --- as in the case of a transexual. He is a person whose outer sex is 'male' but inner-sex is 'female'. A transvestite on the other hand is a male (outer sex) whose inner sex is predominantly though not entirely 'female'
gender means male or female, has nothing to do with "inside"
male or female refers to sex of a person. That is basic English.
sexual orientation is homosexual or heterosexual
The entire concept of sexual orientation is an artificial creation of the modern west.
your last statement provides insight. from it i can tell you have issues about american liberties. in america if you are gay you are not persecuted for it. as a matter of fact most of the people on this board will say they have some kind of problem with them but also believe they are human and have rights.
When you stop viewing this world as divided between homosexual and heterosexual we can have a discussion. If you don't want to get out of your 'well', we will just get no where.
define "invadeing our media space"
Our government (due to pressure from the west) was forced to allow the western media into our country --- and it has bought our media with its wealth and technology and has been forcing 'heterosexualisation' down our throats --- and entire anti-male ideology that goes with it.

It is our outer sexual organ (penis/ testicles) that makes us a male. But it is our inner-sex (male) that makes us a 'man', as far as nature is concerned --- to be more precise a masculine man, as opposite a feminine man.

Now my point is that male is by itself not a complete basic biological or social identity, because it only refers to the outer-sex and leaves out a very important part of our biological sex --- our inner sex, or gender.

To people their inner-sex is much more important than their outer sex. This is apparent in the extreme cases where the outer sex and inner sex don't match at all. Then males see their outer sex a problem, not their inner sex. They are what their inner sex is, not what their outer sex is.

In case of masculine men, it becomes very important for them to be recognised for their natural gender (masculine) --- something that the society manipulates to get the desired (sexual) behaviour from men, by artificially defining what is masculine and what feminine (something I call social masculinity).

*****

Therefore, men are actually divided into 'masculine gendered' men and 'feminine' gendered males. Meterosexual men may be either classed with masculine gendered men or with the feminine gendered men or may even be seen as a separate category depending upon the social mores of a society.

Masculine gendered men and feminine gendered males are two different gender/ sex identities, and they are not 'same'. Any relationship between the members of the two group cannot be considered to be the 'same'. Therefore in most traditional societies sex between men and transvestites etc. was considered equivalent to sex with women (heterosexual).

Therefore the whole concept of 'same-sex' is flawed, if it ignores the gender of people and consider people of two genders as the 'same'.

Am I making myself clear?

inner-sex? what do you mean by this. i have love in my heart, i don't mind hugging people, i tell almost everyone i know "i love you", so with that in mind does that make me female?

you are correct male is incomplete without female

buddha lets define a few things gender means biological male or female,intercourse means "insert penis into vagina"

society has not manipulated me, my upbringing formed who and what i am

homosexual means same sex buddha, to say there is no such thing as gay is ridiculous

inner-sex? what do you mean by this. i have love in my heart, i don't mind hugging people, i tell almost everyone i know "i love you", so with that in mind does that make me female?
Like I said, there is no use of a discussion, if you're not willing to consider new information with an open mind, but if you are part of the vested interest group, it is futile to expect you to have an open mind.

you are correct male is incomplete without female
I made no such comments. I'll make a correction in the above: "Hermaphrodite is incomplete without female" --- (also reflected in the Greek mythology!). A man is complete in himself.

buddha lets define a few things gender means biological male or female,
If you think we will only go by the western definition of things (it's called circular reasoning, like Christians continue to base their arguments on bible and how it defines things), then you can continue to live in your ignorance --- which may be bliss for you! For more information look at various definitions of gender on the net.

But your western definitions do not stand questioning. If you can defend them against the points I have raised, I may then take those definitions to be true, and those that I have learnt from my own society as false.
intercourse means "insert penis into vagina"
And who is talking about intercourse here. Intercourse can also be anal or oral.

homosexual means same sex buddha,
We have already discussed the problem with the word 'same-sex'. If you'd just care to read beyond a glance.

to say there is no such thing as gay is ridiculous. Then the entire human civilisation except the modern day west is ridiculous for no one believed there is any such thing as a 'gay'.

When you stop viewing this world as divided between homosexual and heterosexual we can have a discussion. If you don't want to get out of your 'well', we will just get no where.



so we are talking about no sex?

when 2 humans have sex it is either a. homosexual or b. heterosexual there are no other possibility

how would you describe a eastern scientist?

can you give me some links so i can better cope with this
i believe this is more a cultural problem than any thing else

buddha lets define a few things gender means biological male or female,
O.K., let's assume (only temporarily for discussion's sake) that gender means outer sex only, i.e. penis = male, then you will agree that 'masculinity' or 'femininity' has no role to play in determining socio-sexual identities.

Yes or no?

If you think we will only go by the western definition of things (it's called circular reasoning, like Christians continue to base their arguments on bible and how it defines things),


why not? you expect me to go by eastern kind of things

so we are talking about no sex?

when 2 humans have sex it is either a. homosexual or b. heterosexual there are no other possibility
Clinically speaking let's say we can condone dividing sex into homosexual and heterosexual sex(but even then the problem of what is same-sex and what is opposite-sex will remain!).

But this is still no justification at all for dividing people into 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual'.

For then everyone is capable of doing both homosexual and heterosexual sex (except a very very small minority on both the sides!).

how would you describe a eastern scientist?
Science is omnipresent today. But there is no denying the fact that it has originated in the west not too long ago (a few centuries). An eastern scientist is one who carries on the institution of science in the east.

can you give me some links so i can better cope with this
i believe this is more a cultural problem than any thing else
We have had a big discussion of it. It is continuing. I don't know what kind of links you need. If I can think of something I'll provide.

i have determined this is out of my league
you are totally agaisnt "the west" therefor in your on words "biased"
science is science. there is no west,east,north,or south
what you refer to is cultural and in my opinion . . well buddha i concede

why not? you expect me to go by eastern kind of things
East is not without their fault. In terms of human sexuality --- no society is free from manipulation.

It is the western standards that are being imposed on everyone today, and hence we are challenging them here.

If East is 60% away from nature, west is 97%, and that is where east is more reliable in this case. Also traditional west and today's east are more or less the same. It's the modern west that is different.

We are only saying that we cannot go by the western definitions. We are not saying that we will go by eastern ones. We need to go by what is given by nature. We use eastern culture only to show that what the west thinks is not necessarily the 'universal' or even biological truth.

When a difference arises, we should use it to examine our 'standards' more closely.

i have determined this is out of my league
you are totally agaisnt "the west" therefor in your on words "biased"
science is science. there is no west,east,north,or south
what you refer to is cultural and in my opinion . . well buddha i concede
Another one bites the dust! :cool:

Anyone who can answer this question?

Is the gender (masculine or feminine) of a person unimportant in deciding his social identity, and only the (so-called) 'sexual orientation' is a valid identity?

it seems you are asking about the role of women or womens rights
in the west we consider a man and male sexuality the same. when you say man it also means penis,testicles, the outward appearence. the inside is different for each individual. is this more phsycology than something else

i believe that the concepts you are expressing are the same as the "wests"
the only reason we can not reach a concenses is the terminology

what does it mean for a man to feel feminine? have love in their heart?

and you never answered the question
how is the west invading your media space?

have you heard of compromise? if the west and east ever do agree there must be compromise. some will call it "kissing ass"

Am I making myself clear?

I actually understood that. What is your point? Some men are masculine or heterosexual. Some men are turned to women on the inside and they get on their knees.

Why is that a reason for pages of posts?

Science has been 'invented' by the west.

See Leopoldo? This is how I was going to own you when you were shouting "Racist". The world has always been divided into east and west since American history got started. Has nothing to do with racism.

I actually understood that. What is your point? Some men are masculine or heterosexual. Some men are turned to women on the inside and they get on their knees.

Why is that a reason for pages of posts?
now that you put it that way i too understand, i think
in other words a man that is female on the inside is a coward?

See Leopoldo? This is how I was going to own you when you were shouting "Racist". The world has always been divided into east and west since American history got started. Has nothing to do with racism.
own me?
believe it or not america is the land of people. all people
science was not invented. it is a way of explaining our reality
the biggest difference in our cultures is religion
americans feel religion personal, no matter what god it is you have a right to pray to it. on the other hand you have no right whatsoever of imposing your religion or your god on anybody else

i also disagree that "eastern" science is different than "western" science
what are you saying, water doesn't flow downhill over there?

it might not be racism but i do detect animosity.

it seems you are asking about the role of women or womens rights
!!??? :confused: :bugeye:
in the west we consider a man and male sexuality the same. when you say man it also means penis,testicles, the outward appearence. the inside is different for each individual. is this more phsycology than something else.....?
I don't want to know what you consider in the west. I already know, and have studied it. I'm interested in discussing the validity of what the west propagates.

Gender (inner-sex) is definitely, definitely, biological as will be testified by most transexuals, transvestites, etc.

There is a little boy in my neighbourhood, hardly 5 or 6 years old, and he already behaves as if he were a girl. Surely, no one taught him that. It came naturally to him!

i believe that the concepts you are expressing are the same as the "wests"
the only reason we can not reach a concenses is the terminology
The very concepts are different. But if you will not make efforts to look beyond what you've been told, then we'll never be able to bridge this gap you're talking about.
what does it mean for a man to feel feminine? have love in their heart?
:rolleyes:

To be feminine is to feel partly or completly that you're a woman.

Why does the western society think that a sexual interest is caused by biological factors but one's own sense of being a man or a woman is not?

and you never answered the question
how is the west invading your media space?
I've answered twice. You just don't read my posts.
have you heard of compromise? if the west and east ever do agree there must be compromise. some will call it "kissing ass"
How will it come if you won't even look at the questions posed by the east?

To be frank I don't represent the east, I rather represent the 'nature' and I'm speaking from it's point of view.

now that you put it that way i too understand, i think
in other words a man that is female on the inside is a coward?
I'm sure you're wrong.

Even women are not cowards --- they may have more patience and less of 'ego', so less inclined to prove 'something'. But that is not cowardice. That is a different kind of 'strength'.

Feminine men have the energies of both men and women, and in many ways they are better than masculine men.

It were the Christian and Islamic religions (especially the former) that denigrated femininity in males.

have you heard of compromise? if the west and east ever do agree there must be compromise. some will call it "kissing ass"
But actually, there should not be any compromise with the truth --- the natural truth.

Both the East and the west will have to make compromises --- not with each other --- but with the nature. Nature is the ultimate truth. Much bigger than religion or science. Nature will never make compromises with east or west.

science was not invented. it is a way of explaining our reality
There is a discussion on it going on in the thread "Science is not a perfect institution."

i also disagree that "eastern" science is different than "western" science
what are you saying, water doesn't flow downhill over there?
I've already addressed that issue. You just don't read. If you're just interested in airing your views, not caring about how they are being questioned or refuted, then that is a different thing.

it might not be racism but i do detect animosity.
What do you expect. The west has been exploiting the orient for more than 500 years now. First it was imperialism, today this is globalisation.

At least in my case it is not animosity, it is just an objective criticism. Otherwise I've nothing against the west or its people. Especially, if they could lead their own lives and our lives were not affected by them unfairly.

Anyone who can answer this question?

Is the following true?

The gender orientation (whether he is masculine or feminine) of a person is unimportant in deciding his social identity, only the (so-called) 'sexual orientation' (whether he likes men or women) is a valid identity?

It is a specific question, so I expect a specific reply --- not an indirect one.

If the reply is no then, the entire sexual orientation thing and 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality' divide is a farce, at least in its present form.

If the answer is yes, we can further explore this point.

The gender orientation (whether he is masculine or feminine) of a person is unimportant in deciding his social identity, only the (so-called) 'sexual orientation' (whether he likes men or women) is a valid identity?
What does it tell us about a society which holds the above true?

You can avoid all you want. That will only expose you. Plus, who really cares about you. Others can read my posts, and that will serve my purpose.

WELL! What "purpose" is THAT, my dear Buddha?

And do you agree that 'sexual orientation' is a biological identity but 'gender orientation' is not?

Sure it is. Who controls USA media, corporations, politicians and judges? Israel.

When something goes wrong, the people at the top always take the blame. Whether they actually did it or not, they are in charge, so they take responsibility.


Jews. Yes. It is always them.

WELL! What "purpose" is THAT, my dear Buddha?
Hi, long time no see!

One thing that it tells us is that the society is heavily organised around 'sex'. It gives over importance to sex.

Second thing that it tells us is that the society, for some reason wants to find out who (what outer-sex) people are having sex with? And wants this information on a regular basis.

Now why they want to find out this is yet another topic! ;)

Jews. Yes. It is always them.
Oh, don't start him all over again! :rolleyes: :D

i am sorry buddha. i have tried to understand your take on this. you have not explained anything in terms i can understand even though you claim to know the "wests" take on things.

edit
i suggest you submit your "5 years" of research to the scientific community.
if you have done that and your theory has bitten the dust then you lose.
you can blame the west for every ailment known to man but such a statement would prove, in my mind, that you are a quack

Hi, long time no see!

One thing that it tells us is that the society is heavily organised around 'sex'. It gives over importance to sex.

Second thing that it tells us is that the society, for some reason wants to find out who (what outer-sex) people are having sex with? And wants this information on a regular basis.

Now why they want to find out this is yet another topic! ;)
Oh! sorry, I didn't read your quote properly. You're asking about MY purpose!

Thank you for giving me a chance to say that.

My purpose is to give words to something that has been carefully hidden from everyone, only because there has been an unspoken stigma about discussing it --- even to acknowledge it.

My purpose is solved when I give words to this whole conspiracy. And back it by evidence. The vested interest group will get frustrated and try to minimise the effects of this 'outing' by 'accusing', 'abusing' 'dismissing' and finally 'ignoring', but it would have solved my purpose

i am sorry buddha. i have tried to understand your take on this. you have not explained anything in terms i can understand even though you claim to know the "wests" take on things.
Maybe I can help you with this (I suspect you've really read my posts carefully --- to be able to understand requires motivation, openness and sincerity, I think you're lacking in all here!).

Can you tell me exactly what part you don't understand?

Leopold, if you answer the question I have asked, I think a lot of things will get clear to you. So why don't you try!

But actually, there should not be any compromise with the truth --- the natural truth.

Both the East and the west will have to make compromises --- not with each other ---

you are correct with the first

the second implies you (the east) are unwilling to comprimise with the west

What do you expect. The west has been exploiting the orient for more than 500 years now. First it was imperialism, today this is globalisation.

At least in my case it is not animosity, it is just an objective criticism. Otherwise I've nothing against the west or its people. Especially, if they could lead their own lives and our lives were not affected by them unfairly.
what do YOU expect buddha? to hide in a cave and cower? wether you like it or not our planet is finite our population growth isn't
if you expect to be untouched by any other culture then you are not only unreasonable you are not accepting reality.

you are correct with the first
the second implies you (the east) are unwilling to comprimise with the west
what do YOU expect buddha? to hide in a cave and cower? wether you like it or not our planet is finite our population growth isn't
if you expect to be untouched by any other culture then you are not only unreasonable you are not accepting reality.
Why beat about the bush, let's get down to business. Let's discuss what we are discussing. I don't like this avoidance tactic. Besides it's such a waste of time --- it amounts to sitting in a cave and cowering.

Anyone who can answer this question?

Is the following true?

The gender orientation (whether he is masculine or feminine) of a person is unimportant in deciding his social identity, only the (so-called) 'sexual orientation' (whether he likes men or women) is a valid identity?


gender orientation has no meanig
gender means male or female
social identity means how successful you are has nothing to do with sex or gender
sexual orientation means homosexual or heterosexual

haven't i already answered this?

gender orientation has no meanig
gender means male or female
social identity means how successful you are has nothing to do with sex or gender
sexual orientation means homosexual or heterosexual

haven't i already answered this?
Well, you sure know how not to be specific.

I've already clearly shown you how everything you say here is invalid --- from the standpoint of nature. You have not been able to show why my invalidations are wrong.

But let me put words in your mouth --- going by what you've said in the quote above.

You're saying that 'gender orientation' is not a valid identity, whether a man feels masculine or feminine is unimportant (for whatever reasons), but whom they like is important in deciding their basic social identity --- i.e. homosexual or heterosexual.

I'll take on from here.

Why do you think heterosexual transexuals and transvestites are not included in the straight identity? Why are they forced to seek a different identity becaue their 'gender orientation' is different?

In other words, why does gender orientation become unimportant when deciding the 'homosexual' identity, but becomes important when deciding the 'heterosexual' identity? And openly feminine heterosexual (sic) males who make an issue of their femininity are forced to adopt a different identity because of their feminine gender?

Why do you think heterosexual transexuals and transvestites are not included in the straight identity? Why are they forced to seek a different identity becaue their 'gender orientation' is different?

In other words, why does gender orientation become unimportant when deciding the 'homosexual' identity, but becomes important when deciding the 'heterosexual' identity? And openly feminine heterosexual (sic) males who make an issue of their femininity are forced to adopt a different identity because of their feminine gender?
What does it tell us about the 'heterosexual' society?

in america homosexuals (male-male) (female-female) are accepted. they don't have to "change" anything.

to be honest i feel you are a troll

i have told you how the "west" feels about things and you say they are wrong.
ok buddha they are wrong, what do you want the "west" to do about it?

and don't say listen to me becuase everything you have said makes no sense.

submit your reseach to cornell or yale or harvard, to all three and leave it at that

Before there was male and female, there was neither!

So, to all those who feel that male-female polarity represents the highest and most civilized form of sexuality, you are mistaken!

tell it to cornell,yale,harvard

And who are you talking to, human?

It represents the BASEST of carnal existence, that is, PROCREATION. Quite primitive.
So if you if want to continue exalting male-female couplings as being the epitomy of human expression, then by all means, explain your weakness.

I mean what I say.
You will never find higher meaning by the dualities of the two genders.

Of course, if you do not believe in higher meaning, then of course you aren't going to find anything in it. But you certainly will not find heterosexuality to represent the greatest achievement of man, because it equals DEATH.

And that is not something I have made up. Procreation gives rise to flesh, and all flesh dies. It is not a perfect system. And that imperfect system is made wholly possible by man and woman copulating.

Heterosexuality eventually brings death. Oh, unless of course you have pills or condoms that can "naturally" (note heavy sarcasm) halt that deadly cycle.

Nothing you say will reverse how carnal and deadly male-female sexuality is in its most natural form.

Whether this has anything to do with anything anyone is talking about, I care not.

MALE + FEMALE = DEATH.

Simple, yet so truthful.

And no one will illustrate the "natural" system any better than what I have just done.

I'm only saying, don't think yourself so great if you fit into the category I just described!

Oh, don't start him all over again! :rolleyes: :D

Well, of course I am well aware of the worldwide Zionist conspiracy that does or does not exist. ;)

tell it to cornell,yale,harvard

Bring them to me, and I'll attempt to break the news to them, but I doubt they'll be able to handle it, those poor humans! :(

in america homosexuals (male-male) (female-female) are accepted. they don't have to "change" anything.
avoidance approach......

to be honest i feel you are a troll
accusations approach......:bugeye:

i have told you how the "west" feels about things and you say they are wrong.
ok buddha they are wrong, what do you want the "west" to do about it?

and don't say listen to me becuase everything you have said makes no sense.
Repitition approach......Parroting the same old lines as if they heard nothing knew, read nothing that can go against their stands.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil seems to have a new meaning for the vested interest group. :bugeye:

submit your reseach to cornell or yale or harvard, to all three and leave it at that
Oh you mean to the very bastions of heterosexual ideology. As if they are any better than you.....as if they will accept anything other than 'homosexuals' are different than 'heterosexuals' researches! :rolleyes:

submit your reseach to cornell or yale or harvard, to all three and leave it at that
Then why do you bother coming to a discussion forum, if you don't want to learn or discuss anything different from what you'd like to hear. Why don't you just look at research papers and fill your ego with it.

tell it to cornell,yale,harvard
let me also add a russian and japanese universities as well
but of course they are all against you aren't they?

let me also add a russian and japanese universities as well
but of course they are all against you aren't they?
Why do you want to pass the buck on to the universities? People here are well capable of considering any hypothesis, information, or experiences on their own. Why don't you just refer to all the 'researches' these universities conduct.....why do you waste your time here? We want to discuss new ideas, information and stuff. If you are rattled by these it is your problem. I've not asked you to come to discuss 'homosexuality' here.

To anyone who wants to discuss heterosexuality/ homosexuality:

Why do you think heterosexual transexuals and transvestites are not included in the straight identity? Why are they forced to seek a different identity becaue their 'gender orientation' is different?

In other words, why does gender orientation become unimportant when deciding the 'homosexual' identity, but becomes important when deciding the 'heterosexual' identity? And openly feminine heterosexual (sic) males who make an issue of their femininity are forced to adopt a different identity because of their feminine gender?

Bring them to me, and I'll attempt to break the news to them, but I doubt they'll be able to handle it, those poor humans! :(

Okay, so I was completely unaware that you weren't referring to my own theories of male + female = death. It is a very sound theory, though.

To anyone who wants to discuss heterosexuality/ homosexuality:

Why do you think heterosexual transexuals and transvestites are not included in the straight identity? Why are they forced to seek a different identity becaue their 'gender orientation' is different?

In other words, why does gender orientation become unimportant when deciding the 'homosexual' identity, but becomes important when deciding the 'heterosexual' identity? And openly feminine heterosexual (sic) males who make an issue of their femininity are forced to adopt a different identity because of their feminine gender?


What Buddha1, do you not believe in the "Western philosophy" take of Pheromones emitted to attract the opposite sex? How about Estrogen and Testosterone as properties separating the human biology on a massive scale covering physical and mental makeup on an individual? If you deny these detections why do you claim there being an “inner self” for Females and “outer self” for Males, I assume you mean for then a penis or Vagina?

The fact is homosexuals are different in nature as inHetersexuals differ in terms o gender, and now i begin to see your plight Buddha1. Your agenda Predicated on your ambition to somehow lead people into believing Homoerotism is indeed a state of mind as science asserts but not in the sense of neurological data rather a psychological method of preference. What Jargon you present Budhha1; I hope your pseudo approach meets a real rude awakening Soon!

And I dare not use or rely on biological chemicals to prove a cause for the discerning on homosexuality, but you must are blind not to see the reason Heterosexuality is considered correct n the realm of human production and Homoeroticism false.

I also laugh at you attempt to somehow decipher differences between the feminine mind and the masculine bravado, but yet utter the labeling of ‘Homoerotic beings’ as misleading? If Homogeneity exists in any nature it would be classified in humans as the “heterosexual being” dubbing Homosexuality as unconventional.

The problem you have Buddha1 Is your relentless fixation or fear of same sex coitus being perceived as Archaic has left you bitter. The determining factors as to how future and current Homosexuals will play in the game of life my friend these days’ lay in the hands of the modern gay as much as it does from proof of modern science. Just as people like you protest the differences in racial makeup, so concludes the same for biological differences in sexual orientation and gender. I need not supply proof of water to the dummy when the dummy will not drink. What are your motives Buddha1? Why do you feel the need to exasperate yourself on end, and all for what? Distributing Rhetoric?? Simply being homoerotic Biuddha1 is not enough; therefore must inlay deeper rooted problems you carry inside. Care to share!?!?

in my opinion buddha1 is seperatist
cultural and otherwise he biased against so called "Western" science
he has some sort of problem with compromise
it is his way or the highway. in my opinion

What Buddha1, do you not believe in the "Western philosophy" take of Pheromones emitted to attract the opposite sex? How about Estrogen and Testosterone as properties separating the human biology on a massive scale covering physical and mental makeup on an individual? If you deny these detections why do you claim there being an “inner self” for Females and “outer self” for Males, I assume you mean for then a penis or Vagina?

The fact is homosexuals are different in nature as inHetersexuals differ in terms o gender, and now i begin to see your plight Buddha1. Your agenda Predicated on your ambition to somehow lead people into believing Homoerotism is indeed a state of mind as science asserts but not in the sense of neurological data rather a psychological method of preference. What Jargon you present Budhha1; I hope your pseudo approach meets a real rude awakening Soon!

And I dare not use or rely on biological chemicals to prove a cause for the discerning on homosexuality, but you must are blind not to see the reason Heterosexuality is considered correct n the realm of human production and Homoeroticism false.

I also laugh at you attempt to somehow decipher differences between the feminine mind and the masculine bravado, but yet utter the labeling of ‘Homoerotic beings’ as misleading? If Homogeneity exists in any nature it would be classified in humans as the “heterosexual being” dubbing Homosexuality as unconventional.

The problem you have Buddha1 Is your relentless fixation or fear of same sex coitus being perceived as Archaic has left you bitter. The determining factors as to how future and current Homosexuals will play in the game of life my friend these days’ lay in the hands of the modern gay as much as it does from proof of modern science. Just as people like you protest the differences in racial makeup, so concludes the same for biological differences in sexual orientation and gender. I need not supply proof of water to the dummy when the dummy will not drink. What are your motives Buddha1? Why do you feel the need to exasperate yourself on end, and all for what? Distributing Rhetoric?? Simply being homoerotic Biuddha1 is not enough; therefore must inlay deeper rooted problems you carry inside. Care to share!?!?
Instead of crapping and complaining about this and that and trying to analyse me psychologically, it would be better if you answer the question posed.

Everything you said has already been discussed thoroughly in other threads and on this thread itself.

It is no use staking your claims for either the 'normaility', 'naturalness' or 'masculinity' of heterosexuality when I have proved them absolutely wrong with no one being able to defend the 'heterosexual' position.

Well, Buddha. I emailed you, and I received no response. I messaged you, and still I receive no response. I was one of the few here that put any faith in your theories. So what do you have to say to me? You ignore me. Is this because you are making all this up? Are you that stupid.

Should I now call you a fraud? Are you that dumb? Do you have nothing to say to me, you who claims to know it all?

Well, if you did have something to say, I'm sure you would have been much more eager to respond to my private messages. I note every little thing that happens in my life. Those that come, those that go.

Maybe I have misjudged you?

If so, prove it. Otherwise, don't trifle with me. When I argue, I'm rarely wrong.

I am serious about this. I am not dumb. Not the least of the stupid. What are you really trying to accomplish?

in my opinion buddha1 is seperatist
cultural and otherwise he biased against so called "Western" science
he has some sort of problem with compromise
it is his way or the highway. in my opinion

I do not think you are correct. In my opinion.

So. You are leading me on? You entice me with theories that are half sound, and hope to ensnare me in the rest of your bullshit?

Is this how you operate? If so, don't come back. I will not permit you. You are obviously not very serious about what you do and what you say. I on the other hand, am.

And what am I serious about?

You think anyone gives a **** what you are serious about? I mean, seriously? You spout pseudo-esoteric nonsense with nary a trace of science and actually expect anyone to pay you any heed.

Enough of that childish play! Why are you wasting your time here kid with topics such as this. You should be careful. This is a bad, bad, bad world.....with many of those big dark 'dirty' men.....lurking around. So save you a** while you still have time. Don't leave the security of your pussy!

Well! What is this talk? Intriguing.

You think anyone gives a **** what you are serious about? I mean, seriously? You spout pseudo-esoteric nonsense with nary a trace of science and actually expect anyone to pay you any heed.


Are you talking to me, dear Ophiolite?

And what am I serious about?
Giambatista, I have not recieved your e-mail, and I am waiting for it. What name do you send it under. I get a lot of junk mail, and any mail that looks familiar is put under 'spam'.

Your posts lately have been a bit 'disturbing'. But I don't blame you. I think you are going through a hard time. It is really tough to keep one's cool in the heterosexual society when you don't fit in anywhere.

I think you need counselling. And eventhough I don't have all the time in the world, I may try to help you. But remember, I am not a psychologist, and you have to have patience.

But please don't try to force me into helping you claiming that you believe in my theories. You are not doing me a favour by believing in them. If you benefit from them you should appreciate the fact that I'm spending so much time sharing them here, fighting against all odds and a strong 'heterosexual' backlash.

And it's certainly not true that only you believe me in my theories. I've had my share of support (so far --- cross my fingers), sometimes even from my opponents. But even if I don't get any support, if I believe in what I'm saying --- I am willing to stand alone.

You know how my efforts to share what I know were sabotaged by merging my threads together. I have to start all over again. I will do it sometime in future.

My objective here is to raise consciousness about these issues, so that others can take it on from there. I am not really in a position to help individuals. But if I can do it I would like to do it within the time and other constraints that I have. And sometimes you may need professional help.

I think you're going through particularly hard times these days. So, you can talk about your specific worries to me through pm. As you see, I am still around (I was planning to leave for a while, I was really upset!).

You think anyone gives a **** what you are serious about? I mean, seriously? You spout pseudo-esoteric nonsense with nary a trace of science and actually expect anyone to pay you any heed.


No. Really. What pseudo-esoteric nonsense are you talking about?

With nary a trace of science?

I was talking to Buddha in the first place. He did not answer my private messages, so I figured he was being stupid. But if you think the procreation and natural heterosexuality is all that great, then by all means, do explain how millions of children starving to death each year is a great legacy for those people who claim that male and female = life. PLEASE! I'd like to see you give me some REAL reasons!

Beyond esoteric, I doubt there are good enough reasons to continue procreating. But, I don't think you are able to produce them, regardless of your giant IQ and whatever science you worship in your free time.