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

  1. #981
    Well, I can't use the word homosexual because then everything is so simple. Anal sex with a woman (by a man) is not an homosexual act. The same for a goat.

  2. #982
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by john smith
    Well, i must of been fucking stoned!!

    Try some , might clear your mind of all the sh*t that fills it.

    Just because i agreed with one point you made doesnt mean i agree with the fact that you think all males are gay...you must be a moron, or a sad homosexual, grasping at straws to find any way to justify how he feels, inadequatly, about other men.

    Pathetic.
    Only you know what was going on, in your mind. You did post a couple of 'positive' responses to my post after that. Only you know what makes you change your stand now --- but something is going on inside you.

    Your comments were not about one post. They were about everything I had written till then.

    I think people are more honest when they are fucking stoned!

  3. #983
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Well, I can't use the word homosexual because then everything is so simple. Anal sex with a woman (by a man) is not an homosexual act. The same for a goat.
    the words gay and homosexual do seek to over simplify things with the intention to mislead.

  4. #984
    Not really.

  5. #985
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Oh yes, your denial does not mean much. You and your ilk have proven themselves to be just opposing me for the sake of it. You have utterly failed to bring in any evidences or rationale for your stand.

  6. #986
    Homosexual
    Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.


    n. Usage Problem

    A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

    Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.


    It seems the dictionary solved all your problems.

  7. #987
    Registered Senior Member redarmy11's Avatar
    Posts
    7,658
    What about 'homos'? Is it still OK to call them 'homos'? The terminology changes so fast.

  8. #988
    Homo:
    A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans.
    ok

    Used as a disparaging term for a gay man or lesbian.
    not ok.

    easy or what?

  9. #989
    Registered Senior Member redarmy11's Avatar
    Posts
    7,658
    Okey cokey, cheers for that.

  10. #990
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by cole grey
    Since you make up your own meanings for words, and take evidence that is contrary to your ideas and put it out on the internet as proof of your ideas, I am not surprised that you would say that.
    O.K. Cole grey. It is now time to answer your attempts to mislead on the issue. I took sometime because I was looking for internet resources that I used earlier, but most of them are not available anymore. Fortunately, I found some.
    Quote Originally Posted by cole grey
    I have seen a few references to mammalian behavior, none of which shows that nearly 100% of all mammal species are pansexual or whatever it is you are after.
    Here are some excerpts from Bruce Bagemihl's research. REMEMBER that research into this aspect of animal behaviour is in its nascent stage and there is a whole lot to learn and a whole lot of wilful suppression of facts to uncover:

    - “The nuclear heterosexual family, if you look across the whole animal species is really the exception, rather than the rule,” author Bruce Bagemihl (pronounced “bog-a-meal”) said in an interview. Though common among birds, male-female pairing beyond momentary encounters is found in only 5 percent of mammals. In some species, such as California’s northern elephant seal, 90 percent of males never attempt to breed.
    http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/adven...irt/59/13.html

    - "virtually all Bonobo apes are bisexual, and almost one-half of their sexual relations are with the same sex." Frans de. Waal, in his book Bonobo: the Forgotten Ape

    Humans share over 98 percent of their genetic material with the Bonobo as well as with the Chimpanzee.

    - Simon LeVay, who is a neurobiologist from the Salk Institute, wrote: “The question of whether animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior has been debated for centuries, most often in the context of efforts to stigmatize homosexuality. Three classes of answers have generally been offered: ‘Animals don’t do it, therefore it’s unnatural’; ‘Animals do do it, therefore it’s bestial’; and ‘Some animals do it, and those are the unclean animals’” (195).

    - In Bremer, Germany the Bremerhaven Zoo is making an attempt to turn their gay Humboldt penguins away from their homosexual lifestyle. The zoo is planning to import four female penguins from Sweden to hopefully mate and produce offspring that will delay the extinction of these South American birds, which are currently endangered. After years of confusion as to why their five penguin couples only produced one chick, the penguins went for DNA testing which proved that three of the five couples consisted of male penguins exclusively. With penguins, it is difficult to determine gender,

    After the continuous onslaught of complaints against the “conversion” of their gay penguins to become straight and reproduce, and the failure of the penguins to mate with the imported Swedish females, the Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany has abandoned its plan. As stated by Heike Kück“The zoo just wanted to encourage the Humboldt penguins to breed.” However they found that “The relationships of the male couples were apparently too strong." The zoo has said that it may try again earlier in the season next spring. They believe that the late timing may have also been the cause of indifference from the male penguins, and the zoo still wants to encourage them to breed since they are an endangered species.

    - "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
    --J.B.S. Haldane, evolutionary biologist

    - According to Bagemihl, 50% of killer whales have had at least one homosexual experience. Most male manatees are bi-sexual. Every male giraffe has necked with another guy. If a male cheetah has a long-term relationship with another cheetah, his partner will be male. At least 43% of male cheetahs have had a long-term sexual relationship with another male cheetah.

    - the entire troops of Bonobo and more than 94% of some species of Giraffe indulge in homosexual behaviours.

    Around 80% Of the interactions between giraffe males are sexual.

    Although it is never reported on nature programs, homosexual behaviour is surprisingly common in mammals.

    - 50% of killer whales have had at least one homosexual experience. Most male manatees are bi-sexual. Every male giraffe has necked with another guy. If a male cheetah has a long-term relationship with another cheetah, his partner will be male. At least 43% of male cheetahs have had a long-term sexual relationship with another male cheetah.

  11. #991
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Homosexual
    Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.


    n. Usage Problem

    A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

    Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.


    It seems the dictionary solved all your problems.
    No it didn't. What it did is solve the problem of gays and lesbians.

    The basic thing is that the original people who form the 'gay' group temperamentally seek a separate identity from the 'straight' on account of its gender (feminine gender). We have already seen that straight is not really about being heterosexual but about being masculine gendered.

    But masculine gendered men don't seek a separate identity from other masculine gendered men on account of their choosing to have sex with other men. In fact they form the core of the 'straight' group. Only they have to sacrifice their same-sex needs.

    The definitions forwarded by the heterosexual society reflect their need to isolate same-sex behaviour. They have devised their language, their social classification/ groupings and their labels accordingly. Now people try to fit into them as best as they can.

    Since the western culture does not recognise Gender as biological, westerners fail to see the root of their discomfort as the gender politics of the heterosexual society.

  12. #992
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Homosexual
    Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.


    n. Usage Problem

    A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

    Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.


    It seems the dictionary solved all your problems.
    Of course then there are several other problems with the term 'homosexual', its definitions and its usage, especially when contrasted with the other term 'heterosexual':

    - The definition of the term homosexual has no reference to gender, and this is worst drawback. Masculine gendered men cannot be broken from other masculine gendered men and grouped together with feminine gendered men on account of 'similar sexual preferences'.

  13. #993
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddha1

    - the entire troops of Bonobo and more than 94% of some species of Giraffe indulge in homosexual behaviours.

    Although it is never reported on nature programs, homosexual behaviour is surprisingly common in mammals.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...578554-3538503

    And i have seen several documentaries on bonobos where it was always mentioned how bonobos engaged in bisexual behaviour and of course incestuous sexual behaviour. you have to see this behaviour in context though. Bonobos developed sexual netowrks as a social lubrication. If you look at chimps you see a huge difference in sexual behaviour.

    And this is immediately a clue for you. You cannot extrapolate animal behaviour to human behaviour at whim. As we told you 20.000 times before.



    Hardly a secret. Hardly a conspiracy.

  14. #994
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Homosexual
    Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.


    n. Usage Problem

    A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

    Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.


    It seems the dictionary solved all your problems.
    Of course then there are several other problems with the term 'homosexual', its definitions and its usage, especially when contrasted with the other term 'heterosexual':

    1. The definition of the term homosexual has no reference to gender, and this is its worst drawback. Masculine gendered men cannot be broken from other masculine gendered men and grouped together with feminine gendered men on account of 'similar sexual preferences' because,

    (a) when there are such intense pressures on masculine gendered men to be heterosexual (which are not felt by feminine gendered men) there is little proof that the rest of the 'straight' men are telling the truth about their sexual preferences.

    (b) The sexual preferences for men, of masculine gendered men and feminine gendered men are not really similar. There are several key differences, which we can talk about later.

    (c) Masculine gendered men and feminine gendered men are not the same-sex. They basically belong to two different sex identities. Because sex identity also consists of gender --- in nature and in traditional societies.

    (d) if people from two different sex identities are brought together for liking men, then women who like men should also be brought into the same social group.

    2. Although when giving the label, the definitions don't talk of gender, when actually used --- either for scholarly/ research purposes or for social purposes including by homosexuals themselves, the gender part is brought in from the back door. In practical usage, gay is strongly associated with the feminine gender. Little surprise because for thousands of years 'gay' and such terms have been used for feminine gendered men who liked receptive anal sex. Masculine gendered men were never brought into this classification even when they had sex with men.

    3. While the Gender difference is not accounted for the 'homosexual' identity, and while it is also not used in defining the heterosexual identity, in practical usage gender is also brought into heterosexuality, but in a way to benefit the heterosexual label. Here, feminine gendered men are kept out of its purview. Thus feminine gendered men are not included into the 'straight' label and they have to seek another idenitity together with the gays (see the contradictions) as transexuals and transvestites.

    How many people know that the gay revolution of the west (the stonewall riots) were started by heterosexuals --- transvestite heterosexuals, who used to use the homosexual spaces because the 'straights' won't include them because of their gender.

    4. There are several other drawbacks of these terms both in their definitions and their practical usage. These differences are used abundantly to bolster the 'heterosexual' identity and sustain the pressure on masculine gendered men (straights) to be heterosexual.

    E.g., the term does not talk about whether this same sex attraction needs to be exclusive or not. Practical usage varies according to what suits the heterosexual identity. E.g. when deciding the percentages of 'homo'/ 'hetero', 'homosexual' is taken to mean someone who is exclusively into men. But when deciding the percentage of heterosexual, anyone who has relationships/ sex with women is included --- even if it is not exclusive. Sexual encounters with other men, especially if they are camouflaged are not included into this definition. In fact if you have proven your 'heterosexual' credentials, you can risk a little 'sexual encounter' with men, by making an excuse, without risking your heterosexual status. But when these figures go out into the people they are used as if they represent those 'exclusively' heterosexual.

    On the other hand in a discussion on sciforums where a poster asked how many heterosexual men have had a desire for another man even occasionally, the board was full of belligerent replies asserting that the label heterosexual itself means that the person does not have any sexual attraction towards other men. Even a slight acknowledgement of one's sexual need for men would prompt the vested interest group to put the 'homosexual' label on the man, even if has had relationships with women.

    These double standards are visible in all such uses of the terms homosexual and heterosexual.

  15. #995
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...578554-3538503

    And i have seen several documentaries on bonobos where it was always mentioned how bonobos engaged in bisexual behaviour and of course incestuous sexual behaviour. you have to see this behaviour in context though. Bonobos developed sexual netowrks as a social lubrication. If you look at chimps you see a huge difference in sexual behaviour.

    And this is immediately a clue for you. You cannot extrapolate animal behaviour to human behaviour at whim. As we told you 20.000 times before.



    Hardly a secret. Hardly a conspiracy.
    I think you are extrapolating. You can't take one of the thousand of evidences of mine and claim that I'm basing my contention on its strength alone.

    It is the small things that add up. We are not only talking about the Bonobos. In fact Bonobos are not really what I looking for as an ideal for the human society. They are much closer to heterosexuals/ homosexuals. And they have only physical sex with other males, there is no bonding element. This is exactly the reason for their lower status than the females. In fact Bonobos have a definitive heterosexual lifestyle.

    But don't forget that it is only in recent years that we are seeing information such as that of sex between males in Bonobos. It has been after 200 years of suppressing and misreporting of such information by scientists. This process of destroying evidences has not stopped yet by any means. Only a few people have dared to come forward and bring some of the stuff out. Unfortunately, most of the information is still only avaibalable to the 'scientists' and not the general public.

    The media is not interested in anything that might weaken the heterosexual ideology or its institutions.

  16. #996
    And still you provide not a single smidgeon of motive for this heterosexual conspiracy. Nor any mechanism by which it could possibly be imposed against nature and against our will. Nor an explanation for the failure of anyone in fifty pages of posts on this thread alone to say "Bhudda1, you are right". Here they are, safe in the anonmymity of the internet, able to say - "You know B1, I've always had these feelings, but I thought they were unnatural". Yet not one person has come forward to say that.

    Surely out of the 95% of posters and lurkers we could find one? Apparently not. Does this not cause you the slightest doubt? I guess not - that would be too scientific and you are a self confessed non-scientist, amateur or otherwise.

  17. #997
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by cole grey
    Having sex is about insertion of some kind or another. that is the accepted definition. Holding hands is not sex. Saying, "I love you man" isn't sex.
    I have refuted this statement already in a response to ToR. I might add this quote from Bagemihl below:
    - "In the chapter section "Anything But Sex," Bagemihl deflates the notion that most homosexual behavior is actually just a form of establishing social dominance. He points out, among other things, that such behavior is sometimes mutual or reciprocal, and that it is often the subordinates in the hierarchy who mount their superiors. Biological Exuberance also contains dozens of remarkable photographs and drawings, the most memorable of which include photos of a female hyena nuzzling another hyena's swollen clitoris, a male bamboo giving a blowjob to another chimp, two male giraffes getting it on, and a walrus stroking his hard-on with his flipper."

    - ""necking" behavior of Giraffes......is a sexual/affectionate activity exclusive to MALE Giraffes."

    As it stands, like in humans, in animals too sexual proximity between males find expression in close emotional/ social bonds, intimate body contacts, ejaculatory sex, touching genitals, getting hard ons, mutual masturbation, etc. It may also include mounting and anal sex, but that is only a part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cole grey
    yet you use animal behavior as evidence that 95% of people should not remain strictly heterosexual, when the 8-10% of sheep having homosexual behavior is higher than the natural norm for most mammals. If you think that ANY method of study is going to bring that percentage up to 95% YOU ARE LOSING IT. It won't.
    I'm not telling what people should do or not do with their lives. I'm asking the society to stop forcing and controlling the sexual and social behaviour of people unnecessarily. Give people enough and appropriate gender and sexual choices. There should be no scope for unneccessary manipulation, propaganda, censorship or promotion of one form of sexual bonds over others.

    The 8% - 10% figure is out and out an eyewash. It represents the 'exclusive' male-male sex figure. In fact there are enough possibilities of tampering with the sample because this is a research conducted in a farm setting with dubious motives. Even then the research did find that almost all rams mate with each other, although they also mated with the ewes. But it still went on to classify some males as 'homosexual'. These were typical 'gay' rams who behaved like females and wanted only to be mounted. In nature things are not quite like this. It is an attempt to give scientific and 'natural' credence to the bogus 'sexual orientation' divide by manipulating with the samples.

    I have evidence that animals in captivity are force trained to be 'heterosexuals', otherwise the males mating for reproduction in natural settings is much lower.

    The same happens with human male who is force trained to he heterosexual and to mate with the woman.
    Quote Originally Posted by cole grey
    Also, your idea that the scientist is trying to make the sheep straight because they don't like the behavior is false, this behavior in an endangered species is a problem, but that has NOTHING to do with humans, who are plentiful enough.
    According to Bagemihl, "homosexuality and bisexuality don’t trigger hostility within the animal world. Yet they often upset researchers, one of whom lamented a “lowering of moral standards” among butterflies. And mirroring abuse once inflicted on human homosexuals, scientists have tortured homosexual animals in experiments to find out what’s “wrong” with them."

    The sheep thing is not my idea, it is reported by another scientist Joahn Roughgarden. And the immediate motive is not a 'hatred' of same-sex bonds but a need to increase farm production. But the implications to use it on humans are real and frightening.
    Last edited by Buddha1; 04-27-06 at 03:14 PM.

  18. #998
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddha1
    It is the small things that add up.
    Small things do not add up in science in this way. If you want to study the nature of homosexuality in humans you do not base your ideas on carefully selected excerpts from nature. A selection that is selected because they happen to mesh with personal views.

  19. #999
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    And still you provide not a single smidgeon of motive for this heterosexual conspiracy.
    I have dealt with all the issues that you bring up in my various threads. You have been ignoring them all along.

    The basic motive to force men away from other men and to force them with women was to enable the marriage institution to survive --- with the ultimate aim to increase population levels to sustain civilisations.

    In the medieval times religion became the most powerful institution to keep the pressure on men. In the modern times the role has been taken by science and the media.

    Any artificial human ideology, however oppressive benefits a small population of people who become the 'vested interest group'. The mechanisms of oppression created to force people into marriage had created its own vested interest groups who quickly came forward to take the charge in the open, supposedly free modern society.

    The motive here is of course to protect the enormous power that male-female sex has generated by the sheer force of being promoted and upholstered for thousands of years and the numbers of adherents that it has created. What better way to keep that power than to convert it into a basic social identity.

    From the experience of religion we know that if something is made into your basic social identity you will be willing to fight and die for it, inspite of your natural instincts and affiliations.

    The motive is also to concretise the victimisation of same-sex bonds by bringing the issue out into the open (it survived quietly and secretly in the mainstream amongst straight men, behind social facades all these centuries), and to isolate it and finally by making it into a social identity too. The third-sex identity.

  20. #1000
    I present the final evidence that NOT 95% of men have a sexual need for other men!

    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51941

    case closed.

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
  •