95% of men have a sexual need for other men

**~~spuriousmonkey~~** · 02-11-06, 01:01 PM

twat.

**Buddha1** · 02-11-06, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

They call them promiscuous. And if there is malicious intent they call them sluts.

No they don't! They make it seem normal for women, even girls to date men. And dating involves sex. There is just too much pressures on men both of society and sexuality (remember that young men are also blocked from their sexual need for men, making them completely dependant on women for such needs!).

They make women wear 'sexy' and revealing dresses in the hope that this will increase men's 'heterosexuality' (sic). They want women to be readily available to men in the heterosexual society --- whether men want it or not, so that men can no longer use the excuse of 'women not being there' to get it off with each other.

They encourage women to be sexually aggressive and demanding. The 'modern' woman is not shy about sex at all.

**~~spuriousmonkey~~** · 02-11-06, 01:49 PM

They? they? who is they?

**water** · 02-11-06, 02:05 PM

Buddha1,

Who is "they"? Who?

**Buddha1** · 02-11-06, 03:12 PM

Those who control and run the heterosexual society. The vested interest group. In fact in the west people have been brainwashed for so long that almost everybody thinks it is a matter of women's right for them to be indulgant about sex.

Why you can look at T.V., newspapers and the films to start with. They hae the greatest amount of influence on our young and what they do.

**Buddha1** · 02-11-06, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

They? they? who is they?

Funny you should be asking. You used the word first "They call them promiscuous".

Quitter!

**~~spuriousmonkey~~** · 02-11-06, 04:24 PM

You might had a point if i was pointing out the existence of a conspiracy.

Who is controlling heterosexual society then?

**water** · 02-12-06, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Buddha1

In fact in the west people have been brainwashed for so long that almost everybody thinks it is a matter of women's right for them to be indulgant about sex.

I am a woman and I live in the West and
I do not agree with you.

**Buddha1** · 02-12-06, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

You might had a point if i was pointing out the existence of a conspiracy.

Who is controlling heterosexual society then?

The vested interest group! They're always there in any social set up. In communism, in capitalism, in Chrisitanity, in monarchy......every ideology benefits and empowers some people, even if they are a minority. And they brainwash many others into believing in their ideology (like in Islam) by misrepresenting facts and preventing the truth to be discussed or acknowledged. And they scare the rest into towing the line.

In the case of a heterosexual set up the following are the vested interest group:

1. A significant number of women. Women are the primary beneficiaries of a heterosexual society. It gives them power over men.

2. What I call the true heterosexuals. I.e. men who are 'designed' to bond sexually with women rather than with men. (this doesn't rule out short term sexual attraction for men)

3. original homosexuals (i.e feminine gendered males who like men): They are empowered in their own way by the heterosexual society, even when it seems to be at odds with it.

The heterosexual society cannot just finish off same-sex needs from the society. But it can contain (or proclaim to contain) it in a ghetto called homosexuality --- the control of which is given to the feminine gendered males, who protect it with zeal.

**Buddha1** · 02-12-06, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by water

I am a woman and I live in the West and
I do not agree with you.

Obviously, you don't have much say! You are not represented by the media, by the movies, by the newspapers. If you have any voice it is in your own small ghetto --- like gay men.

**water** · 02-12-06, 01:05 AM

Buddha1,

I would like you to go and do 100 prostrations and say 1000 om mani padme hum.

**water** · 02-12-06, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Buddha1

Obviously, you don't have much say! You are not represented by the media, by the movies, by the newspapers. If you have any voice it is in your own small ghetto --- like gay men.

I have the say in my world, in my head.

You keep refusing yourself to have the say in yours.

**Cross** · 02-12-06, 01:31 AM

What this fails to account for is the actual volitional intention of sex:

Procreation is not just the act of sex, but the ongoing concern.

A procreative standard for sexuality is untenable. It's people who have a fundamentally negative view of sex trying to justify their sexual intentions by some "higher" purpose. This attitude obviously has sexually repressive religious sanctions against sex as it's origin. This need to justify your intentions regarding sex acts by some higher calling, by procreation, is done out of guilt over the sex act themselves, over one's self-interested intent in seeking sexual satisfaction. It's just an inability to accept one's intent in a sexual act on it's own merits.

The intention behind a sex act is self satisfaction, and people generally just can't accept that that itself has merit. So although they seek sex for this purpose, they still can't deal with the merit of this intent, and so they have "procreation" in the background as a "blessing" upon their sex acts.

**Buddha1** · 02-12-06, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Cross

The intention behind a sex act is self satisfaction, and people generally just can't accept that that itself has merit. So although they seek sex for this purpose, they still can't deal with the merit of this intent, and so they have "procreation" in the background as a "blessing" upon their sex acts.

And amazingly, becuase the society has created such a heavy propaganda around it, people frequently indulge in sex which has nothing to do with procreation but relate it with that 'higher' blessing because it is also 'heterosexuality.

Confirms my point that we need to differentiate between male-female sex for reproduction and male-female sex for pleasure/ procreation.......it is unfortunate, but we have to do it because the society has already dissected our sexual needs but in a distortive way --- in order to persecute some and unjustifiably glorify the others.

And because the reason for glorification is 'procreation' we must get at the root of it.

**Buddha1** · 02-12-06, 01:43 AM

And did Darwin not lend scientific credence to this religious glorifiecation of sex for procreation?

**Cross** · 02-12-06, 01:44 AM

Some relevant quotes from a very good book on this subject:

“Homosexual Behavior Among Males: A Cross-cultural and Cross-Species Investigation”
Wainwright Churchill 1967

Preface:

“Recent scientific investigations into the sexual behavior of human and subhuman animals have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that homosexual responsiveness is a component of mammalian sexuality.”

“ Most of the clinical discourses on homosexuality and other sexual phenomena that fail to meet with approval in our culture seem to be only sophisticated substitutes for the more frankly moralistic tracts on sex which were fashionable several generations ago.”

“Most often homosexual responsiveness occurs among males who also respond vigorously to heterosexual stimuli, and it is entirely misleading to discuss it as if it were always , or even usually, a distinct phenomena isolated from other aspects of mammalian sexuality.”

“With pious solemnity the ancient Hebrews bore the burden of the moral superiority they felt, ever mindful that to themselves alone had been revealed the nature of true morality. The “unnatural lusts” and immodest behavior of their “heathenish” neighbors scandalized the followers of Jehovah and caused them more than once to denounce the Egyptians, Canaanites, Greeks, and Romans.

Not a little of their indignation was due to the pagan habit of exposing the nude body to view in all it’s details; for it is to the ancient Hebrews that we owe the idea that nakedness is shameful, and the feeling that the sexual organs and their functions are obscene…In place of an innocent attitude toward nudity, they developed a morbid preoccupation with modesty.”

“All of the sexual prohibitions in Judaism and Christianity originate in a profoundly erotophobic psychology, a psychology in which sex is regarded not merely as somehow inherently evil, but also as somehow inherently dangerous. Although this erotophobia is rationalized in numerous and varied ways by those who have succumbed to it, none really understands it’s origin, any more than they understand the extent to which it is responsible for many of the beliefs and attitudes too often considered judgments of reality.”

“Men who view the sexual drive as inherently evil and dangerous are likely to look upon the objects of their desire with both contempt and fear”

“It is significant…that there is as yet no religious concept of sex as a legitimate force worthy of esteem on it’s own merits alone.”

In response top this last quote, this is because that concept would have to be based upon personal freedom, and a religion cannot condone personal freedom since it’s very aim is to subject one’s life to an all powerful deity, or authority. Religion says man is not free. So, this is why, via, religion, sex is tied to the force of procreation, instead of to the force of man’s joy in being free. Procreation puts the object of sex outside of reality, just as God is. The object is what does not exist. Children.

Homosexual sex can only be justified on the grounds of freedom. It’s freedom which gives homosexual sex it’s real purpose, gives it an aim: it’s an act of freedom that’s satisfying to an individual. A procreative standard of sex is a standard which puts the aim of sex outside the act itself, and also outside of the individuals acting. The aim is non-existent progeny. It takes the focus of sex off of the those who have it, primarily. It’s a standard outside of reality. A standard “inside” of reality is the lives of the actual participants, their satisfaction. However, this requires freedom.

Freedom justifies sex. Where men are not free, "procreation" becomes the going justification for existence.

**Buddha1** · 02-12-06, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by water

I have the say in my world, in my head.

You keep refusing yourself to have the say in yours.

I'm concerned about people and the physical world they live in!

You are concerned about yourself and about your personal spiritual pursuits!

For you your inner world is important. For me the outer world and its pain and turbulations are important and must be addressed.

You are saying that when one sees pain outside, one should just ignore the outer world and find solace within.

I'm asking to deal with the outer world and the 'man made' things that cause pain.

**Cross** · 02-12-06, 01:52 AM

And amazingly, becuase the society has created such a heavy propaganda around it, people frequently indulge in sex which has nothing to do with procreation but relate it with that 'higher' blessing because it is also 'heterosexuality.

Acutally, I think Blindman had a point here that it's about the "...ongoing concern". I mean even if most of someone's sexual activity doesn't lead to procreation, still, if procreation is the standard, then the need for sex to maintain a realtionship in which children can, and at some point do, occur and be raised, still has that same standard.