02-07-06, 03:30 AM #361
Moseh, I'll advice you to concentrate on religion. Don't pressurise your pea brain with things you have no way to understand!
02-07-06, 03:35 AM #362
AHH.. so you dont deny it...
you are promoting.. you are gay... you are out of the closet?
02-07-06, 03:47 AM #363Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
And what about all people who identify as bisexual? The number of them in society depends on whichever study you choose to accept (if it even asks their opinion in the first place).
Having grown up in a completely hetero-oriented society, I can tell you that I was never given ANY positive reinforcement as regards any sexual orientation other than "straight". Some may contend (and rightfully so) that some people who claim bisexuality may be doing so just to avoid looking like a complete "other" by declaring themselves attracted predominately to their own gender. That way you're able to leave a different path open for your own public image.
When all you're fed from your childhood is images of man and woman, and words like "homo" and "faggot" tell you what NOT to do, you have little choice but to play along. Some people get out of that early on. Others play it all their life. Some people try to change, and some of them succeed.
If it was so acceptable to be that way, people wouldn't be given every incentive to be anything BUT.
I've said it before, and I might as well say it again, that people kill themselves over same-sex attraction. They kill themselves because they feel like outsiders. Words like faggot, dyke, homo, queer, etc, do not in any way encourage a person to accept same-sex attractions.
I've never heard of anyone becoming distraught over an opposite-sex attraction.
02-07-06, 03:59 AM #364
I'm not pretending to speak for 95% of men, believe me. I'm just saying that I fail to see any pressure from any gay agenda to coerce people to be that way. I never saw it when I was growing up. I saw exactly the opposite.
I'm just saying that it isn't exactly an acceptable alternative.
02-07-06, 05:19 AM #365I've never heard of anyone becoming distraught over an opposite-sex attraction.
You have never read a love story I presume.
As I mentioned so long ago, it is love that drives the human species, not sexual attraction.
02-07-06, 07:07 AM #366
what gets me about this is
buddha goes around saying 95% of men have a sexual need for other men
but when i suggested that he might be gay he was highly offended
buddha if you are so sure of your statement
why does the suggestion offend you so?
the boner was invented for em
02-07-06, 07:35 AM #367Originally Posted by Blindman
People kill themselves because they are attracted to someone of the SAME-SEX. I'm NOT talking about distraught lovers of ANY persuasion. I'm talking about the very idea of being attracted to a certain gender.
Men don't simply say "Oh! I'm attracted to a woman! I'm such a biological failure! I should kill myself, rather than subject my family to such a dishonor!"
I'm sure you could have thought of that. So why didn't you?
Anyhow, that's what I meant by that. I guess I should have spelled it out.
And what does a love story or novel have do with anything? We're not talking about fiction here!
It seems to be pretty obvious where your bias resides from your last post that I saw.
02-07-06, 07:57 AM #368
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
02-07-06, 08:02 AM #369
Originally Posted by leopold99
I am here to discuss things at a macro level, and am not interested in talking with fools who just keep whimpering about the same old stuff.
If you have nothing better to say then stop posting personal trash. Find yourself a better subject to discuss. If you're right then nothing I will say will make it wrong, so why bother with something you're not capable of understanding or commenting upon.
02-07-06, 08:51 AM #370
Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
Remember that the heterosexual 'science' will always hide, distort and misprepresent animal sexuality and any information you want to have about what is actually going on will have to be gleaned from the 'cobweb' of manipulation.
a. Most information given about horses try to fit them into Darwinism/ heterosexuality......and even though this link here also does that.....it does accept that most horses indulge in 'bisexuality'.....they say its becasue 'mares' are not there.....but it clearly happens a lot in the wild.
Bisexuality is prevalent in bachelor stallion groups that have no access to mares. Without access to heterosexual activity, many stallion will engage in typical homosexual activity, mounting other stallions and adopting mare-like heat display to entice other stallions.
Source: Miniature Horse sexual preference
b. It does seem that mares do live in what you call 'harems', although we don't know for how many times in a year. A link that I'll give hints that it is only in the breeding season that the stallion becomes interested in controlling the herd.
And a harem is no proof that the male stallion has any relationship with the mare apart from the bare minimum sexual act --- which is described as being for 1 minute at the most.
(source: Sexual behaviour in the herds of icelandic horses )
c. Although 'science' as such only seems to be interested in stallions that control the herds, most stallions it would seem, are not interested in controlling the female herd, and prefer to live in the male herds.
Although no figures are given for the percentage of stallion who leave the male herd to control the female herd......it does seem that they do it only later in life......and we don't know how for how many years this control of female 'harem' continues.
But simple logic would tell us that not many stallions are interested in forming harems. If we assume that there are equal number of males and females in the horse population, and each harem consists of app. 20 mares who are controlled usually by a pair of stallions or three maybe.
Then there will at any given time be a vast majority of stallions who do not want to control any herds, and never do so in their life and are happy being a part of what you call 'bachelor' herds.
d.) Again, I have heard about, and it is also found in other animal societies that have harems, the stallion having sex with adolescent males in his group.....now you may try to dismiss this as 'dominance' behaviour but since it is so common amongst stallions, you'll have a hard time convincing me.
In fact if you look at the description of male-female sex in horses, apart from the time the mare is in heat, it would seem that the horse is only trying to dominate the female.
e.) We have also not been told anything about sexual relationships and other bonds between the females. Surely, the information is biased and they don't want us to know the complete truth.
f.) Although the scientists glorify the stallions controlling the 'harems' as the 'alpha male', if you make a comparison between the 'alpha male' who controls the male group and the 'alpha male' that controls the female group you will know who is more of a man.....sorry 'stallion'!
02-07-06, 09:10 AM #371
And a harem is no proof that the male stallion has any relationship with the mare apart from the bare minimum sexual act
02-07-06, 09:18 AM #372
This point is the key to whatever I have been saying so far, including that sexual orientation is an unnatural, invalid and harmful concept
Of course when I say 95% I actually mean a near total majority, and not exactly that number.
- Evidence of the nature and strength of pressures that play on men to suppress their same-sex needs.
First, get "sexual orientation" out of the way, let me just say I agree on that point. I'll basically leave it at that. My reasons for agreement are probably different. I don't think the concept is valid, but since this thread isn't a debate on that issue, I won't try and explain it here.
95%? You said that was a rough estimate, but what I don't get about it, is having a percentage. On what basis is anyone excluded from having this "need" you say most have? Why not all? Why not human male qua human male? What's your basis for two separate catagories of males? Who comprises the 5% or so?
When you give a percentage like this for some human trait, male humans in this case, you're implementing this divsion. It's saying there are two groups of males, one group has this need, while the other doesn't. So for those who don't, the 5%, why don't they?
How do you tell them apart? What's your standard for telling them apart? Is it solid?
It's just, it seems like this adds unneccessary confusion. Unless you have a reason to not just be talking about males on principle, instead of in general, it would simplify dealing with the issue of the reality or unreality of this controversially alleged need.
Last edited by Cross; 02-07-06 at 11:20 AM.
02-07-06, 09:34 AM #373
95% is in doubt. By myself, in ... others. WHOA! Are there OTHERS!
02-07-06, 10:22 AM #374But simple logic would tell us that not many stallions are interested in forming harems. If we assume that there are equal number of males and females in the horse population, and each harem consists of app. 20 mares who are controlled usually by a pair of stallions or three maybe.
Then there will at any given time be a vast majority of stallions who do not want to control any herds, and never do so in their life and are happy being a part of what you call 'bachelor' herds
Equal numbers of mares and stallions, lets say, 50 mares, 50 stallions.
Now, lets say, 20 mares, to every 2 stallions, following me so far?
so, from those 50 mares, you can have 3 herds, 2 herds with 20 mares, and 2 stallions and one herd with 10 mares and 1 stallion. That leaves you with 45 stallions who aren't in a herd.
There are also different personality types within the stallions, and not all stallions choose to have a herd, some stallions with take on "dove like behaviour" where by instead of controlling a herd they merely take chances with mares in oestrus when the dominant stallion is busy etc.
02-07-06, 10:27 AM #375b. I am not at all obliged to answer arguments that comprise your personal opinons not validated by evidences, whether verifiable or not.
Agreed people may lie or hide this information and results one way or the other may be inaccurate, but proving so is incredably difficult and near impossible without people becoming more open, this is the reason you are struggling to get people to see your point of view. People who tell you they have no same sex desires, may be hiding it, or they may genuinely have no same sex desires, this is the problem you are faced with proving.
c. Yes, I agree that the arguments about animals just point to the possibility of humans too having the same sexual and emotional nature. It doesn't prove it conclusively. But then please allow me to continue.
b.) I never called you 'gay', in fact I don't agree with the word gay, so it just shows your own insecurity! My statement if you failed to notice was half-joke!
That's no reason why I or others should believe her knowledge. Would you take my word for it that 95% of men have a sexual need for men, because I have worked with men?
I've never discredited all of the scientific information summarily. I just showed with evidence that science can also be wrong. It was needed becuase a lot of people enforce the view that just because science puts its stamp on something it is no more debatable.
However, in order to debate 'scientific information' you have to have a reason to do so, and evidences to counter that information, like I did in the thread "homosexuality and anterior hypothalamus'.
You'll also notice that the scientific information if at all manipulated, it is manipulated in favour of the 'heterosexual ideology'. The scientific community will not allow information to be manipulated against that 'ideology' and this in itself is a great check.
AND YES STOP LOOKING AT THINGS BRIEFLY AND THEN JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS AND TO START ARGUING. THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. YOU'RE JUST WASTING MY TIME IF YOU'RE HALF-HEARTED ABOUT IT.
Unfortunately, and this is not your fault my earlier thread about pressues on men to be heterosexual has been tampered with by the moderators, so I can't direct you to them. But the posts are there, sometimes in haphazard manner in the thread "heterosexuality is unnatural". And there is a lot of material.
If you'd read only this threads, along with the threads "Men and masculinlity", "Darwin is wrong about sexuality" and "Do you as a man have a sexual need for men" you will find that we have talked about "social masculinity' being a much more effective, although hidden pressure than any amount of outer, visible pressures whether religious or social.
If you don't accept my definitions, then you should be able to provide answers to the questionis I raise against the western definitions.
If you can't provide the answers, then I'm well within the limits of a fair discussion to ask you to desist from using them.
Apparently, it is not what you know that counts here, or else I wouldn't have to go through such hard work to prove my case.
why do you guys... keep answering this thread???
havent you noticed that budda1 is blantently part of the gay agenda..??
i.e.. he has an agenda... to promote gayness.
that much should be clear...
by responding... you are providing him with ways of furthering his cause.
i say ... let it die.
One more question for buddha, if other people in that 95% can be unknowingly hiding their requirement for sexual activities with the same sex, why cant you be included in that? Maybe i missed it somewhere, but i think you insist you dont like men, which would put you in the 5% in theory.
02-07-06, 10:29 AM #376
Originally Posted by Giambattista
I'm not doubting the amount of the percentage. I'm doubting the need to separate human males into these two classes, of those who have the need (sexual need for other males) and those who do not. Any percentage will do this. If some males do seem to have it, to Buddha, in how he sees it, then what males has he seen who give him just as much reason to doubt they have it? Are there any? Why is this not just about a male's need as such? All I'm saying is I think it would be easier to handle the issue if we eliminated the 5% catagory. If there is a reason for that 5%, then we can't. I'm just asking why we can't, or rather why he can't. I don't know what his reason is.
Last edited by Cross; 02-07-06 at 10:35 AM.
02-07-06, 10:55 AM #377
Originally Posted by Cross
Just to be clear: I understand that most people view these issues within the framework of "sexual orientation", and so they think there must be some percentages. However, Buddha is not veiwing it within this framework.
02-07-06, 11:12 AM #378
You can look in Buddha1's head? Is that because you are the same person?
02-07-06, 11:30 AM #379
Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
02-07-06, 11:31 AM #380
Is he your wife?