Thread: 95% of men have a sexual need for other men

  1. #721
    I think sciforums should be renamed pseudosciforums.

  2. #722
    Valued Senior Member Blindman's Avatar
    Posts
    1,425
    What ever happened to STD’s ????

  3. #723
    Sexually transmitted diseases? Sunscriber Trunk Dialling?

  4. #724
    Buddha1,



    I have worked for 10 long years, with more than 50000 mainstream men. I did not work in a gay ghetto! And I did not just see incidences of men enjoying or wanting to enjoy vain sexual pleasure with each other. I found men struggling with their feelings, breaking off friendhsips, forcing themselves into relationships with women, consuming expensive and harmful medicines only so that they can boost their 'sexual prowess' to be able to prove themselves, that they are indeed 'men'.

    How can I ignore the suffering of men, when I'm also a man and can relate to and by the virtue of my work see the source of their pain.

    Or are you saying that problems don't exist at macro or social levels at all? So honour killings is not a social problem? You can't attempt to study it at a social level. It's each person's individual problem?

    And environmental degradation? Is it also an individual problem? And we should let individuals sort that out?

    It's just how we look at things?
    Yes, whether we like it or not. It is in the individual where changes are made.


    Well, one of that was not said by me.....the second was just a harmless joke to a poster who asked me if I was an ape --- the kind men do all the time.
    I apologize for misattributing the quote.


    Do you have a personal problem with the issues that I raise? Well there is hardly anyone arguing with me who doesn't seem to have one.
    What I find very problematic in your approach is your complete lack of compassion for those whom you deem to be your opposition. You label them "the powerful vested interest group", threaten to put them on ignore, call them trolls.
    I'm not surprised they don't take you seriously.


    So with just those two statements I have thoroughly discredited myself, have I?
    Not just with those statements.

    But moreso, with your thinking in extremes, like when I said --

    "Religions, philosophies and all kinds of spiritual movements have been tending to this problem for millenia. Too bad that people make such poor use of the tools offered there."

    and you reply --

    "Like saying kill men who sleep with men?"


    You tend to go into such extremes, and communication becomes impossible then. If I say it is important that one takes care of oneself, you reply that taking care of oneself means ignoring others. Your interpretations of what I and some other people say are extremely uncharitable, you seem to be set to look only in terms who will agree with you, and who will be your enemy.

    I'm only criticizing your approach, I think it is very ineffective.


    o.k. Just to tell you, I'm not doing any intervention here. I have carried out intervention work successfully in my own society. This is just trying to raise the issue with the society that is the root of the problem.
    Calling people trolls and threatening to put them on ignore does no good to your cause.


    Also, the manner in which I bring it up is one thing. But the issue itself and content of my evidences is quite another matter. As far as I am honest and on the side of the truth, and follow the rules of a fair and open discussion, I think my drawbacks can be ignored.
    I disagree. The issue is delicate, this is why the greatest possible discreetness and professionalism are necessary.


    What matters is that I say what I believe to be the truth. Let people decide what they want to believe in and what they don't.
    But then you can't call them trolls, brainwashed and so on.



    Why do you think the basic instincts of humans and animals will differ?
    The basic instincts may not differ, but how they are acted on, what they actually look like, this can differ greatly.

    A living being can breathe with lungs, gills, through the skin etc. To say that, for example, only breathing with lungs is "natural", is, in my opinion, scientifically unacceptable.

    Or, living beings can live solitary, in pairs, in small groups, in large groups, only in pairs in time of mating and raising offspring and otherwise solitary, etc. Again, I find it unreasonable to claim that only one social organization is "natural", and others being "unnatural". I see no reason to think that, for example, living in a large group is "natural", while living "solitary" is "unnatural".


    But I can't see any other difference between humans and animals.
    Which animals? There are thousands of animal species.

    Just take eating, for example. What is "natural"? Eating the meat of other animals, eating vegetables, parasitizing, eating carrion? All these are found in animals, but it would be nonsensical to claim that only eating vegetables is "natural", while being a carnivore is "unnatural", for example.

    And then sex and reproduction. What is "natural"? To mate with one partner for life, or to change as many as possible within one mating season? To abandon offspring as soon as they are born? To care for it for years?

    Even in mammals, a large variety of sexual and reproductive behaviours can be found, but to choose only one or a few and call them "natural" and others "unnatural" -- that is, in my opinion, an unbased stretch.

    Homosexuality may be common within certain species, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is inherent to all species.


    Otherwise they wouldn't do researches on animals to find medicies for humans. Or dissect animals to understand humans.
    That depends on what is being researched. Dissecting insects to find out how human hearing works, or studying the brain of starfish to find out how human brain works -- that is usually not being done.


    Don't the average animal live to eat, drink and have sex? Isn't that what the average human do?
    For one, I have no idea what you mean by "average animal". An average cow? An average python? An average squid?

    And surely, living beings have the function of seeking and taking nourishment and procreating.

    But there are many many ways to do that, as noted above.


    Really, what is different between us and animals?
    If you put things in such general terms as "live to eat, drink and have sex", then even plants fit into this category.


    In other words, bringing in evidence from the animal world to prove something about humans is a potential misfire, esp. when it is about behaviour.

    Surely, cosmetics are tested on animals, they put mascara and lipstick into the eyes of rabbits to see how irritated the delicate tissue gets, and this corresponds with how irritated the tissue in human eyes gets. Or, they used to measure the lethal doses of certain poisons on sheep -- as an adult sheep has a body comparable to an adult human.

    But just because some male elephants or dolphins display homosexual behaviour, this doesn't mean that the same will be true for humans in the same percentage.

  5. #725
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    Posts
    4,875
    Quote Originally Posted by water
    Surely, cosmetics are tested on animals, they put mascara and lipstick into the eyes of rabbits to see how irritated the delicate tissue gets, and this corresponds with how irritated the tissue in human eyes gets.

    So women can continue to keep up their artificial appearances! God bless!

  6. #726
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    Posts
    4,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Blindman
    What ever happened to STD’s ????
    I finally eliminated them.

  7. #727
    Quote Originally Posted by Giambattista
    So women can continue to keep up their artificial appearances! God bless!
    and let's not forget homosexuals (sarcasm)

  8. #728
    i am going to be relentless buddha

    · "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01

    A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."

    (W. D. Erickson, "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters," Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.)

  9. #729
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    Posts
    4,875
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    and let's not forget homosexuals (sarcasm)
    Which ones? The tall thin ones with the large eyes? Or the little blue doctors?

  10. #730
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If birdflu mutates so that it is directly transmissible from human to human, and if nothing is done in advance to mitigate against the consequences, then the 150 million figure is a realistic one. The health authorities are (rightly in my view) highlighting the potential risks to ensure that something is done, so that the eventual death toll is lower.
    If this particular brand of bird flu does not mutate, another one will, sooner or later. That's where, probably, all our other flu variants have come from.

    Yeah sure. Lol yeah! really that is going to happen. people who think that are just paranoid. Am not saying some destructive virus isn't going to kill humans. But Bird Flu come on I we eat chickens.

  11. #731
    Muslim, it is apparent that you know nothing about the epidemiology of influenza. Influenza in humans is derived from birds (there is a possibility that some strains of flu originated in pigs). This is thoroughly well documented and understood. This is not paranoia, it is simple science.
    Also, what has our proclivity for eating chickens got to do with the matter?

  12. #732
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Muslim, it is apparent that you know nothing about the epidemiology of influenza. Influenza in humans is derived from birds (there is a possibility that some strains of flu originated in pigs). This is thoroughly well documented and understood. This is not paranoia, it is simple science.
    Also, what has our proclivity for eating chickens got to do with the matter?
    The point I am trying to make, don't you think we would have been infected by now we have been eating birds you 1000s of years. The West Nile killed loads of people, but didn't finish off humanity. What shall we now declare a war on mosquitoes?

  13. #733
    Quote Originally Posted by Muslim
    What shall we now declare a war on mosquitoes?
    You must be young because we already did that once with the mighty DDT.

  14. #734
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    You must be young because we already did that once with the mighty DDT.
    yeah, DDT was nicknamed "drop dead twice"

  15. #735
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    yeah, DDT was nicknamed "drop dead twice"
    Right....

  16. #736
    Quote Originally Posted by Muslim
    The point I am trying to make, don't you think we would have been infected by now we have been eating birds you 1000s of years. The West Nile killed loads of people, but didn't finish off humanity. What shall we now declare a war on mosquitoes?
    Are you being deliberately obtuse.
    Point 1: Nobody is saying you will catch influenza every time you eat a chicken.
    a) The chicken has to be infected.
    b) It has to be improperly cooked, so that the virus is not destroyed.
    c) You must not be carrying anti-bodies for the specific virus.
    Point 2: It is generally not eating infected birds that is the problem, it is living in close proximity to them, as millions do in rural Asia.
    Point 3: The reservoir of viral influenza lies in populations of wild birds, who pass it onto domestic poultry on those occasions they come into contact with them/
    Point 4: The influenza epidemics of the past have all been acquired (with the possible pig exception noted above) from birds.
    Point 5: Nobody is suggesting for one moment that this is going to finish humanity off. Where did you get such an absurd idea. What is being clearly stated is that it could very easily kill around 1.5% of the population. That is an issue that seems to worth taking seriously. Obviously you don't.
    I was taking you seriously in your third eye thread, since you seemed to be willing to take a reasoned, sensible, measured approach to your arguments. Here you are just being foolish.

  17. #737
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Are you being deliberately obtuse.
    Point 1: Nobody is saying you will catch influenza every time you eat a chicken.
    a) The chicken has to be infected.
    b) It has to be improperly cooked, so that the virus is not destroyed.
    c) You must not be carrying anti-bodies for the specific virus.
    Point 2: It is generally not eating infected birds that is the problem, it is living in close proximity to them, as millions do in rural Asia.
    Point 3: The reservoir of viral influenza lies in populations of wild birds, who pass it onto domestic poultry on those occasions they come into contact with them/
    Point 4: The influenza epidemics of the past have all been acquired (with the possible pig exception noted above) from birds.
    Point 5: Nobody is suggesting for one moment that this is going to finish humanity off. Where did you get such an absurd idea. What is being clearly stated is that it could very easily kill around 1.5% of the population. That is an issue that seems to worth taking seriously. Obviously you don't.
    I was taking you seriously in your third eye thread, since you seemed to be willing to take a reasoned, sensible, measured approach to your arguments. Here you are just being foolish.

    Still I don't think 150 million people are going to die. Maybe about 1 million but 150 million come on that is going way over the top.

  18. #738
    Muslim, now just who do you think I have more confidence in:
    a) One twenty two year old who has already demonstrated their ignorance of bird flu.
    b) National and International Health organisations composed of thousands of expert doctors, microbiologist, virologists, epidemiologists, statisticians, etc

    I think you know which I will choose.

    Muslim, without consulting google - I trust you not to - how many people died in the largest flu epidemic of the twentieth century. Clearly you think it was about 1 million. But go ahead. Give me another figure.

  19. #739
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Muslim, now just who do you think I have more confidence in:
    a) One twenty two year old who has already demonstrated their ignorance of bird flu.
    b) National and International Health organisations composed of thousands of expert doctors, microbiologist, virologists, epidemiologists, statisticians, etc

    I think you know which I will choose.

    Muslim, without consulting google - I trust you not to - how many people died in the largest flu epidemic of the twentieth century. Clearly you think it was about 1 million. But go ahead. Give me another figure.
    The Spanish flu?

  20. #740
    Yes. I asked you how many. I take it you don't know.

    Between fifty and one hundred million. If an equivalent percentage were to die from a comparable epidemic today we would lose between two hundred million and four hundred million.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •