95% of men have a sexual need for other men

[Buddha1]

In humans, we say "Fuck You!" a lot. If we didn't have language, we'd most likely go up and fight the one trying to dominate us and mount him if we win the fight. You know, just a friendly "Fuck You buddy! Try that again and I'll fuck you up again!". Yo.

Yeah sure we say "fuck you" to men, and it is supposed to be a great put down! But you must understand that our language represents and incorporates our pressures and the social mechanism to oppress men. This is part of the strategy developed by the society to keep men continually in struggle with their same sex needs. Ridicule is the strongest weapon against men. And receptive anal sex has been feminised and denigrated since at least two thousand years --- as part of the social conspiracy to ween men away from men in order to harness them into the marriage yolk.

[Lemming3k]

Lemming2K,

That was a long post, saying nothing much but what an ignorant, overconfident layman from the vested interest group would say.....I think you're new to my threads --- for you're raising the things that people used to raise when I first started the topic, what.....about some one and a half years ago.

I make one long post instead of several shorter ones, i find it easier to track, it simply says what i've experienced, it doesnt fit with your views and you most probably dislike it, hence the comments, i have read more of your posts than you realise, they crop up on all sorts of threads tracing back to the same routes, but maybe things are different where you are.

It's not that I've come with these 'bizarre' conclusions just out of the blue --- I've built up my case on this forum gradually......over these months. Not only did it take months, it took hundreds of pages. You surely don't want me go through all that, all over again.

I admit and appreciate that you seem serious about this as opposed to being a simple minded troll, and i do love a good conspiricy theory, but i see very little that actually proves your statistics, it is an intruging theory but i think the only way to prove it is in a society with no influences, which from what i can tell isnt a possible experiment.
I was guessing you weren't from Britain or America and perhaps language can be awkward at times so we'll say no more about that other than it gets very hard to follow.

And.....we have discussed the pressures that men face to be heterosexual in great detail in the thread "pressures on men to be heterosexual".

I personally feel no pressure, but perhaps im a minority.

By the way lemming2K, instead from trying to runaway from the issue or dismiss it summarily, why don't you ponder over the evidences and anecdotes that I have given......and try to analyse them. If what I'm saying is untrue there is no way that these evidences/ anecdotes can exist.

They can exist, some people/animals etc can be gay, form gay bonds with people of the same sex and engage in such sexual activity, but that by no means dictates that most people feel the same urges, the anecdote with the horse didnt prove it was gay, merely that it prefered the company of the male, that doesnt in any way denote sexual attraction, perhaps i missed a bit.
I stand by the suggestion that the number you posted is too high as i see little to the contrary, you could post a million anecdotes, all of which could be true, but that doesnt add up to 95%. Of course i dont expect this from you, merely evidence that the number you posted is correct will be enough, i feel the number of people who are gay or bi is closer to between 5 and 15%. If of course its genetic you would expect the number to decrease as the gene largely wouldnt be passed on, if it is social, the number is likely to fluctuate, but i dont think it would go so high in the case of gays. Bi people is always a possibility however and many people in the past liked both sexes, but as i say the number would be variable in different societies.
Also please note my name contains a 3, not a 2, just for future reference(its irrelevant to the debate, but i would appreciate it).

. I mean if you're more powerful, you might just as well beat the guy into submission --- but to have sex with him in order to show you are superior......I mean, be reasonable!

I think you may misunderstand the term "mount" in relation to superiority, there usually is no sexual act, im sure you must have seen dogs mount for things other than sex? It's to assert dominance, sort of an im on top therefore im stronger act, theres no sex, plenty of females do this to each other too.

[superluminal]

I mean if you're more powerful, you might just as well beat the guy into submission --- but to have sex with him in order to show you are superior......I mean, be reasonable!

You think that males who are exhibiting dominance mounting behavior (and despite your zeal to prove otherwise, this is very well supported) are "having sex" with each other? You think there's penetration of some kind and ejaculation??? Please provide one shred of evidence that this occurrs in any but the rarest of circumstances in non-human mammals.

[James R]

Buddha1:

You either missed my post (page 3 at 10 posts per page), or chose to ignore it.

[Sinawik]

I knew it !!! WWF Pro wrestling is nothing more that a bunch of ugly guys trying to get off on each other.

[Sinawik]

the "that" should be a "than"

[Sinawik]

i just got too excited.

[leopold]

i just got too excited.

you can edit your posts after you post them
by clicking on edit on the upper right of the post

[QuarkMoon]

I guess I'm part of the rare 5% of men who don't care for crusty, hairy, smelly men as sexual partners. Plus I don't like things shoved inside of me, if you know what I mean.

[btimsah]

Giambattista, frankly, I don't care what you believe, or anyone else for that matter. I'll prove what I have observed and then people can go on believing what they want.

I already know how people will react.

The real straight men will almost all relate to this immediately, even when most will not be able to support me on this because of the pressures of social masculinity.

The real gays and heteros, together with the women (i.e the vested interest group) will not like to believe it, and will continue to hold on to their biases, but now they will be painfully aware that the ideology that they hold on to is not the 'majority' and thus not 'straight'.

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this, but the fact that you start out with a false percentage - 95% just to get our attention is a bad sign.

You also need to define what you mean by "sexual need" for other men. What exactly are we talking about here? I don't want to be graphic, but I have to be. Are we talking about hand-jobs, oral sex, anal sex, relationships or what?

It's been my experience that people who are bisexual often want to pretend that everyone "is bisexual to some degree" - even though were not.

[btimsah]

If ONLY we could actually put aside our human notions of fairness and justice and actually implement what is CLEARLY God's righteous mandate: to kill all faggots. What an abomination!

Okay, I've said my PEACE!

Peace, yall!

Undoubtedly Giambattista your words and stupidity is the abomination. You speak of God and yet fail to use what God gave you - a brain.

It's people like you, who go attacking gay people, that end up scared their going to hell - not the other way around. I wonder why that is?

Truthfully, you are nothing more than a gutless liar who would never kill anyone. You just pretend to be one on an internet message board.

[superluminal]

I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. (?!?!?)

[Giambattista]

Undoubtedly Giambattista your words and stupidity is the abomination. You speak of God and yet fail to use what God gave you - a brain.

It's people like you, who go attacking gay people, that end up scared their going to hell - not the other way around. I wonder why that is?

Truthfully, you are nothing more than a gutless liar who would never kill anyone. You just pretend to be one on an internet message board.

Sshh!

I wrote a series of comments which were highly sarcastic. That was one of them. If you had read them all, you might have picked up on that.

In fact, if you had read many of my responses to Buddha, and my posts in his threads, you'd have a better understanding of my position. Believe me, if Buddha thought I was serious, he'd probably have given an angry response.

I was discussing these topics seriously for quite awhile, and was at one point accused of being "blind", though when I asked this person to specify in what way, I got a vague response about "knowing nothing about science." I asked for further clarification, I don't remember getting any.

There's been alot of silly, snide, condescending, and inflammatory comments around here. I'm getting tired of being serious about it (anything actually), hence my sarcasm.

[James R]

Buddha1:

We could settle this question with a simple poll, couldn't we?

Just start a thread and ask the men on the forum "Are you sexually attracted to other men?"

[Buddha1]

Buddha1:

You either missed my post (page 3 at 10 posts per page), or chose to ignore it.

No James, I did not miss your post. Yours was the only post that formed part of an intelligent discussion, that is why I kept it aside to answer at leisure. You see it is more fun to answer all the rubbish first.......I'll soon get back to you!

Buddha1: We could settle this question with a simple poll, couldn't we?

Just start a thread and ask the men on the forum "Are you sexually attracted to other men?"

.....But it does seem that you've ignored my long answer to a similar question that explains exactly why such a poll will not work --- and it is exactly the reason why science (unless it decides to look behind what men say!) is incapable of finding out the reality about men......

In short, welcome to the world of men, where men don't say what they mean and often don't mean what they say! (esp. in matters like this). We've proved it with examples.

[Buddha1]

Truthfully, you are nothing more than a gutless liar who would never kill anyone. You just pretend to be one on an internet message board.

You can have my word for it that he wouldn't!

By the way, this is exactly what some people are doing here with my poss......they hastily read some of them and then draw their conclusions. And that includes you too Lemming2K. When you're too biased or part of the vested interest group, you already assume and are looking for motives of the 'opposition' than actually try to say what the person is saying.

You read a couple of things out of context and then proceed to react.

[Buddha1]

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this, but the fact that you start out with a false percentage - 95% just to get our attention is a bad sign.

Read the evidences. They are clearly marked out!

You also need to define what you mean by "sexual need" for other men. What exactly are we talking about here? I don't want to be graphic, but I have to be. Are we talking about hand-jobs, oral sex, anal sex, relationships or what?

Science!!

Sexual need for males may include any or all of that. It may also include a spiritual even platonic need.

It's been my experience that people who are bisexual often want to pretend that everyone "is bisexual to some degree" - even though were not.

your personal experience vs. my work experience with more than 50000 men.

your experience based on what you saw on the outside of people vs. my experience of what I saw behind their masks!

[Buddha1]

I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. (?!?!?)

Good for ya!!

[Giambattista]

You can have my word for it that he wouldn't!

By the way, this is exactly what some people are doing here with my poss......they hastily read some of them and then draw their conclusions. And that includes you too Lemming2K. When you're too biased or part of the vested interest group, you already assume and are looking for motives of the 'opposition' than actually try to say what the person is saying.

You read a couple of things out of context and then proceed to react.

Yes, I don't quite understand how someone could think I was actually serious, considering the irony and sarcasm I was using. Maybe it was a stupid comment. I don't really care, I was kind of intoxicated anyhow!

[Giambattista]

Buddha, were you ever going to answer my question about men and their body image?You remember I asked that about a week ago, and you REFUSE to discuss it with me.