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

  1. #801
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    Happy go lucky.

    Where's my lover, Buddha? I'm so spikey I can scarcely breathe a word of it.

    95% of men... are idiotic. How bout that.

    Discuss it, my orangutans.

  2. #802
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    I AM 95% OF MEN!

    I have needs. You know, for other guys.

    We went to the junkyard, and all I saw was car-casses...

  3. #803
    If you don't mind sharing it with us G, what is the exact nature of your psychological problem?

  4. #804
    can't you tell?
    he misses buddha so much that he just can't help himself

  5. #805
    But Muslim is Buddha1

  6. #806
    how do you know? elaborate

  7. #807
    Well being a Humanoloist its was easy for me.

  8. #808
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If you don't mind sharing it with us G, what is the exact nature of your psychological problem?
    The psychologists aren't smart enough to figure that one out, so I diagnosed myself: JPEG Disorder.

    Normal people will not be able find it there, which is why I had to do it myself.

    Now, lets here it for AIDS!!! YEAH!!!

    Aids: we couldn't do it without the little people who help us with the details.

  9. #809
    It’s too bad lord ButterFly has flown away, leaving only the memory of his bright colorations and eloquent wing strokes to remind us of how vile and brutish we all are, in comparison.

    Every so often, a soul with a subtle wrist and a tender lisp comes along to put us all to shame, causing us to reconsider our vulgarities with the needy screams of a girlish-man, dreaming of a better world, full of love and compassion where sensitive souls are not crushed under the boot of reality.
    To those fantasy-infected minds we owe our naiveté and childish hopes, bringing us back to where sunshine is all we wanted and our imagination wasn’t so burdened by experience.

  10. #810
    Registered Senior Member
    Hello I am back.

    I don't have an access to a computer anymore, so I'll be posting about once or twice in a week.

    I can see how the frustrated lot has tried to hijack this thread into totally irrelevant discussions. But I'm back to blast the farce that is heterosexuality.

  11. #811
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    Yeah!!! Better watch it, boyz, my bi*** is back!

    Sorry, Buddha1. You may now commence with the usual tirades.

    Let me start things off: heterosexuality is a primitive way of thinking, and the truly awesome know better.

  12. #812
    Registered Senior Member
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Thank you for your answer Bhudda1. For once you made coherent sense. Please don't take that to mean that I agree with you, or that I accept the 'truth' of your statements. I simply mean you have, at last, presented your argument in a clear, concise, cohesive manner.
    Now, for a moment, suppose I accept this is true, I still don't see why as a bona fide heterosexual should wish to impose this on all males. I would be far better to encourage male-male bonding, since that would leave more females for me. Indeed, I find this aspect of your hypothesis so enticing I am almost ready to come on board as a full fledged supporter. I simply do not see what I, as a heterosexual minority, get out of foisting my preferences on other males.
    Perhaps you can explain.
    I'll do the explanation the next time round.

    Here is a detailed version of my answer.


    Consider the number of increased population you can generate through the enforced marriage institution when in nature less than 5% of males mate for reproduction regularly, and of the rest some mate once or twice in their life and others don’t mate at all.

    The society must have been overwhelmed by this immense increase it could bring about by bringing in the marriage institution.

    It was enormous. Around 1800% increase, if you assume that all of the rest of 95% of males participate now.

    The societies really needed this artificial increase. Their survival was under threat as they were trying to settle into far off uninhabited lands. Plus the mortality rates in those days were extremely high. There were no medicines as we know them now.

    But the societies never meant to force ‘relationships’ or male-female intimacy on men. The social contract of marriage was clear in its mandate. It only wanted men to be involved in procreation year after year and to give protection to the children. Male-female sex had no other value for the society.

    It was clear to the societies that they would need to create a psychological mechanism of pressure to force men into marriage. For men would not readily break their strong bonds with other men to form a social contract with women and get involved in rearing children for which they were not naturally inclined.

    Thus, it was the most natural thing for the society to do – to use the ‘manhood’ tests that men had for inclusion into male ‘herds’ --- to include ‘procreative power’ as a criteria. And thus arose the concept of social masculinity.

    Societies also realized that to create a social need for women, men would also have to be broken from other men. But to do this totally was neither possible nor necessary for those ancient societies. Naturally, they used ‘social masculinity’ to accomplish this. But what came under proscription was receptive anal sex, which was deemed ‘feminine’.

    This trend continued till the ancient Greeks when the society gave men a space and opportunity to bond with other men in the first half of their life and then forced them to get married in the latter half. Marriage was especially a must for the common men, while the noble men had more freedom to bond with men. Socially acceptable intimacy with men now came at a price.

    Again, marriage for men was only a social contract, and this did not mean that the man had to form intimacy with the woman. His relationship with women was limited to having sex once in a while. While he continued to form bonds with other men --- both social and sexual.

    [This arrangement was seen in almost all the parts of the world --- and some of those arrangements survive even today (e.g. parts of Afghanistan and some tribes). Others like the Samurais died out in the medieval days. In diluted forms this trend continued till the heterosexualisation of the societies in the west.]

    Then came Christianity, and changed everything. For the first time in human history here was an attempt to make spirituality a matter of ‘social identity’ that pitched one human against the other. Christians said their god was the only one and the others were ‘evil’. This too was a first. The most crucial thing was that Christians wanted to gain numerical strength.

    That was also the time when many societies the world, over were trying to contain male-bonds since they were ‘erupting’ again big time. That is the thing with nature, you become slack and they rise again.

    All along the history of the marriage institution, it was the masculine warrior male groups who kept rebelling and bringing back male-bonds into focus. Other ‘softer’ men had adjusted with the demands of the ‘civilized’ society or had made peace with it. After all it did allow them to carry on male bonds behind social screens. While the extremely feminine gendered males were allowed to openly pursue sex with men and acknowledge a same-sex desire. But they were extremely denigrated for not participating in the procreation process. This signified their redundancy in the medieval societies (Something science/ Darwinism did in the modern times).

    The records suggest that Christianity came at a time when there were already talks in the ‘civilized societies’ of whether men should be allowed to bond sexually with men. On the other hand, the debates might have been triggered off by Christianity. Whatever the case, something happened around the time Christianity happened that created a shift in public opinion against masculine bonds. Christianity made a very clever move that sealed the fate of masculine male bonds. It proclaimed it a sin against god. It became a thing that ‘god’ hated.

    Taming the warrior groups (e.g. the Herles, Vikings, Celts, Barbarians, etc.) of men that practiced such bonds universally and openly, as if it were the most masculine and natural thing to do, was not easy. In a new world that was increasingly becoming hostile to same-sex bonds, they had turned rebellious, aggressive and destructive. It further built up a case against them.

    But they were gradually ‘civilized’ by bringing them into the Christian folds --- through bribing them (e.g. they offered them money/ jobs in missionary armies).

    In the later societies the social masculinity criteria of procreative ‘power’ gave way to have sex with women. While being fucked anally continued to remain a ‘weakness’. But even here, for the most part, getting married and producing a son was considered to be the final and indisputable ‘proof’ of this ‘power to have sex with women’. Emotional intimacy with women was still looked down upon and considered unmanly. Heterosexual societies changed all that. Here you must actually have sex with women and adopt a heterosexual label and constantly prove a lack of interest in men. None of this formed part of masculinity earlier.

    However sex between mainstream men as such was not beyond social masculinity --- at least it was allowed if men could invent an excuse for it and it was not acknowledged as a need, nor given any significance. This was done to make sure that such bonds did not come in the way of marriage as they are bound to, otherwise. Men to this date have programmed themselves accordingly. Such ‘excuses’ have wide social acceptability. A fact that ‘Science’ has ‘abused’ when it used them as explanations for same-sex bonds in the animals (e.g. the dominance explanation!).

    Men to this date will never acknowledge their same-sex needs. But they’ll indulge in it whenever a safe opportunity turns up. Then they will invent an excuse or just wait for one.

  13. #813
    Registered Senior Member

    Any man would indulge in same-sex relationships, as long as:
    he can find an excuse,
    he doesn’t have to acknowledge his need for sex with a man,
    It is safe, i.e. it doesn’t harm his social masculinity --- including his own sense of it. This also means that he cannot indulge in same-sex relationships if it harms his social power or if it makes him vulnerable. The gay identity does just that. It takes away his social power.

    Thus a mainstream man will only indulge in same-sex activities, and only to that extent and only with that person and only in such circumstances that will not cause him to be labeled as ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’.

    Just the reason why the vested interest group is over-eager to thrust the gay identity or a potential rebel --- and is not willing to view sexuality as fluid and not divided between heterosexual and homosexual. That is the only way it can scare men off masculine bonds.

    Thus it is clear that it is the ‘sexual orientation’ concept that gives scientific validity to the power base of the vested interest group. It is extremely crucial in this day and age of science (If you’re not living in Arab, that is, because then you could use religion as a valid excuse for persecution!).

    That is why the vested interest group will not listen to reason nor will indulge in a dialogue that threatens to expose the ‘sexual orientation’ theory. Because there is no way it can defend it in a sincere dialogue.

    Naturally, the vested interest group is pissed off when I resist that! It robs them of their most important weapon.

  14. #814
    Registered Senior Member
    What is the point of the ‘gay’ identity in a society where every man openly has sex with another man? Don’t forget that even in this society there exist a class of men who are loosely seen as ‘different’, but they are not necessarily outcaste in a separate ghetto. These different people are termed ‘homo’ in these societies.

    In such societies, men don’t use the word ‘homo’ or ‘gay’ for each other. It is considered a great dishonor and disrespect if you do so. Unless the person is an extremely and openly feminine gendered male. Then it doesn’t matter if he has sex only with the females. He will still be called a ‘homo’.

  15. #815
    Registered Senior Member
    There is a whole world of difference between the feminine gendered men who like men (gays) and the masculine gendered men who like men. Their whole outlook towards life, how they see themselves, how they see others --- it is all different from each other.

    Even the nature of their desire for men and its expression differs in feminine gendered and masculine gendered men.

    E.g. when a feminine gendered male has sex with a masculine gendered man, he does not think of himself as a man having sex with another man. Rather, he thinks of himself as a woman having sex with a man. The masculine gendered man who has sex with the feminine gendered man also thinks of ‘hir’ as not that he is having sex with a ‘man’, but that he is having sex with someone who is neither a man nor a woman (i.e. belongs to a different/ third gender).

    It is the same when a feminine gendered man has sex with women. He thinks of himself as a woman having sex with women.

    There is no basis for clubbing together feminine gendered and masculine gendered men under the same group because of their supposedly same sexuality (which is actually not the same!). On the other hand there is every reason for clubbing together all feminine gendered males into one group inspite of whom they want to bond with.

  16. #816
    Registered Senior Member
    This is in response to a point raised by someone about why should bonds be confused with sexual need.

    Relationship between sexual bonds & deep social bonds (deep friendships)
    An ability to bond sexually and an ability to form intimate social bonds are connected.

    You cannot have a deep friendship bond with another unless sexual feelings are involved in a great way --- even if unacknowledged.

    Men who are naturally closer to the concept of heterosexuality (i.e. those who can bond with women) are not generally capable of forming any close bonds with other men. For that matter they are not really that much into sports or any of the other things that men love doing together. They’d rather hang out with the girls.

    Such men may force themselves to hang out with the guys and do their things but they will never enjoy it or participate deeply.

    They will be incapable of handling anything that will require male bonding. They may be good to play singles and mixed doubles of tennis, but not football or hockey.

    These men are unlikely to have a close male buddy!

    It is for the same reason that they are not very masculine. Nor do they really give a damn about the whole ‘masculinity’ business. You’ll generally not find them at the gym. Irrespective of what the artificial social environment and the media would have us believe.

  17. #817
    Registered Senior Member
    Putting label of masculine gendered men who rebel against the heterosexual ideology and isolating them into the feminine gendered ‘gay’ ghetto is akin to putting a bold “HIV+” mark on people who test to be positive in a community where HIV infection is rampant (lets say 1 in every 3) but testing is optional, and hostility against HIV+ people is extremely high.

    It is also akin to keeping these people found with HIV on to a different island or in an isolation ward.

    Of course, the comparison with HIV is an insult to the positive and healthy feelings that same sex needs are, yet the society has created the same stigma around same-sex feelings, as that exists around HIV in some societies.

    When this society follows the policy of ‘outing’ those found HIV+ during tests, few people will come forward to test themselves, and would prefer to die of the disease than to seek treatment.

    If the society then says that the incidence of HIV is low because the number of people with the HIV+ mark is low, or people who accept their HIV status is low, then it is a deception.

  18. #818
    Registered Senior Member
    By censoring information about same sex bonds from the media (media is a reflection of the society), and by talking endlessly about male-female love, sex relationships etc. (e.g. in the counseling column), they make it seem heterosexuality is real.

    Further, if they do talk about same-sex needs or desires, they make sure to label it ‘homosexual’ which of course carries with it the insinuation of being a minority, feminine and abnormal.

    By doing this they reinforce the heterosexual ideology and strengthen the ’homosexual’ identity, which in turn strengthens and validates the feminine gendered males’ ‘control’ of the same-sex needs amongst humans.

    But this also weakens the capability of the masculine gendered men from claiming their same-sex and same gender needs.

  19. #819
    Registered Senior Member
    Cross, is right, there is no basis for dividing the 5% people from the rest on the basis that they want to bond with men. But since the society has already divided men on the basis of alleged ‘sexual preferences’, and created a lot of myths and lies with the help of it (e.g. that a sexual desire for men makes you feminine), it is very important to put things in perspective, before we can go towards merging these misleading identities into the larger male identity, once again.

    Therefore, for the time being, we have to differentiate between:

    1. the mainstream, masculine gendered male desire for other masculine gendered men, and
    2. the homosexual

    .....because these two are two distinct ‘communities’, concepts and natures……

    ….. before we can go on to remove any differences based on so-called ‘sexual preferences’ or even on ‘gender’.

  20. #820
    Registered Senior Member
    The herding mentality of masculine gendered males ensures that they willingly sacrifice their individuality for that which is acceptable to the ‘herd’. Their own personal needs and desires are important only when they tally with what the ‘herd’ as a whole does. This creates the room for intense peer pressure.

    Thus peer-pressure is basically a male phenomenon, especially intense during adolescence in the human male.

    Now under natural circumstances, the herd will behave according to their nature --- including in the case of sexuality and there will not be much room for ‘peer-pressure’ to go against one’s nature.

    But when societies through manipulation and through the artificial concept of ‘social masculinity’ change the behavior of the ‘herd’ artificially, it means trouble for the individual. Then the herd mentality of men would force them to suppress, negate and basically work against their natural instincts. If everything fails, they can always hide behind masks of social masculinity --- as most men do eventually. The society (including science and surveys) showcases these masks as proof of the ‘nature’ of men.

    Then some of these men have to join the herd of ‘weaklings’ (homosexuals) for that is where ‘weak’ men (such as those that cannot control their same-sex needs) belong.

    Interestingly, in nature it is the ‘true’ heterosexual who doesn’t or can’t bond with the males, who willingly or unwillingly has to leave the herd. ‘Heterosexuals’ in nature usually live lonely lives – because females don’t want to bond with males.

    So they live in isolation, while the real males live in herds.


Posting Permissions

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