95% of men have a sexual need for other men

You were still reading them? Its funny how most people seem to think being close to another guy or making slight comments etc is considered being gay, where im from, its when you've got your cock up another mans ass....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

being friends... good friends.. is one thing...

but having a sexual need is another.

-MT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's the proportion for women then, Bhudda?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we stopped reading his posts on the simple fact that if it was a sexual need, there would be more gay sex, if people can get by without it, its not really a need, and i know the numbers of openly gay or bi people are increasing as it becomes more socially acceptable, but i dont think 95% of people are even if you include people who experiment out of curiousity, but maybe i know the minority.
Buddha if you seriously believe this crap then put an anonymous pole up to see who is gay/bi or whatever, if nobody has to reveal their answers they will be honest and we'll see if 19 out of 20 people here are inclined that way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Buddha1,

If I'm not mistaken, most, if not all of your quoted observations of primates and other mammals is correct, but your conclusion is woefully mistaken. Males of most species use mounting and other apparent sexual moves to demonstrate and maintain the dominance heierarchy. While there are clearly true homosexual drives in some portion of the animal kingdom, 95% is outright rediculous. Natural selection alone would preclude it at that level. 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.

 

I'm not gay, but you're clearly a wimp.......

We have already seen how heterosexuality is queer. The only incidence of heterosexuality amongst mammals in the wild is those of extremely feminine males who are scared to fight even to defend themselves, and who like to be be dominated by women. And the incidence is extremely rare, like 1%.

And of course I have observed that there is a strong connection between true heterosexuality (and not one that is a pretence!) and an often secret desire to cross dress.

By the way here are three pictures of yours I found on the this very heterosexual site (ooooomph!). Heterosexual males do look sexy:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

.....So much for the heterosexuality is manly rubbish!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

...........

 

Where I am from its when you dress up like a woman.........having sex with men is immaterial, you could like only women for all we care......So Android you're actually the faggot!

 

Frankly, I know little about women.

But judging from what's been observed amnogst mammals, the few women I've spoken to about the issue (my friend said, men are too much of a hassle, it would be better to settle down with a woman......she is married now!), and from reports that I hear from the 'open'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

west, women do seem to be equally into other women --- as men are into men.

But it does seem that women are also dependant on men for one thing procreation.......something which is no big deal for men, but procreation is the essence of being a female.......and so there will be more women to man sexual need than the reverse.

But in the end it will balance itself out as men tend to be promiscous with women, so even a smaller number will be enough to do the needful. :m: Besides you don't need romance or love to procreate.

That's redundant and remember that nature is frugal!

 

When you disagree or have proof to the contrary, you don't stop reading......you aggressively come forward and post evidence to the contrary! Ignoring refers to a deep down scare --- that the other guy is speaking the truth. Obviously, it is not something that people take lightly going by the number of hits these threads generate.

And comeon noone has been ignoring my threads, anything but ignoring!

And for all its talk of being omnipresent, heterosexuality cannot defend itself at a simple down to earth discussion speaks volumes for itself. Of course the heterosexual ideology can only get by by 'talking' big and talking 'science' which seems too far-fetched and orchestrated. (We've seen how science is not a perfect institution!). But as soon as you start discussing that science (Darwin

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) they start avoiding the basic questions asked.

a.) If people need to be moved away from male sexual need for men using strong force, it clearly shows that the need is strong. I mean you don't fight a teeny-weeny amount of meeky queens with a heavy army and the most sophisticated weapons, and you surely don't need to rush to the nuclear weapon (regardless of the harm it will cause to everybody else!) as the heterosexual society seems to be doing.

There would be absolutely no need to see masculine sexuality and the homosexuals as a threat.......certainly not to the extent that the society does......Something just doesn't fit, don't you think?

If you can ponder about it, why are people like Anomalous so scared that even the act of questioning heteroseuxality will 'change' the youth's mind.

Tell you what, his fears are absolutely justified! And that is what makes what I'm doing right and virtuous.

b.) I've used the example before of how caged parrots, who are brought up in captivity since the beginning, learn to see their cramped cages as 'natural' and are too scared to come out and fly in the open sky. Because the world outside is too hostile and they prefer the security of the cage. Besides they haven't learned to fly!

Does that mean it is not natural for a parrot to fly?

It certainly doesn't mean that for parrots to be able to fly in the open sky and live with other parrots is not a natural need.

The thing is you can take people away from their natural needs. You can make them kill that need, suppress it, hide it, be ashamed of it, hate it, fight with it, ignore it, AND.....if everything else fails MASK IT with masks of heterosexuality.

c.) Has the society really cared to see how men are getting without their sexual need for men? What does the heterosexual society care about men in any case? They fool men by presenting fake images of 'social masculinity' and propping up their ego.

On the contrary the society trains men to mutilate their sexual need for men from their childhood and expects them to go about in life as if it doesn't exist --- if they want to avoid being outcast and thrown into the feminine homosexual dust bin!

The concept of sexual orientation is the most effective way to distort the truth about male gender and sexual needs.

Men clearly reject is as can be seen by the Afghan example. And when can't reject it they then reject their sexual feelings for men, or hide it behind a heterosexual mask.

That men can't be open about their sexual needs shows only the enormity and seriousness of their social pressures, rather than the intensity of their natural need.

The sexual need for other men is indeed intense. The society manages to suppress is only because it starts the process of suppression young (It works by creating an intense self-hatred by psychologically tying the feeling with femininity --- we have seen the process in the thread: "Gender orientation is biological"). Were the society to fail to do this before adolescence is over, there is no way it can kill the sexual need in men? That will also explain the anxiety of people like Anomalous.

All the cases of masculine men who call themselves 'gay' are of those in whom the society somehow failed to reign in their sexual need for men in time. That is the only thing that seperates them from other straight men --- not some supposed biological gene. The strongest threat that the society faces in this fragile task of killing mens'-sexual-need-for-men is ----- that the boy would somehow experience the strong positive feeling of male eroticism or even sexual bonding. And consequently, male sex with an adolescent males is seen as one of the worst crimes that a man can commit.

 

These women are NOT attractive. They look more like my grandma.

 

Considering he is a male (heterosexual, mind you!), he is pretty attractive!

More information about this can be found on this very very heterosexual site, brimming with heterosexual masculinity (but you'll agree that there are no pretenses involved, this is heterosexuality without any of its masks, and I'll admit it is pure, honest, harmless, beautiful and most of all brave! --- something which can not be said for all the pseudo heterosexuals here, who are heterosexuals only for the social masculinilty it brings or because of how their society/ religion has trained them!):

http://www.geocities.com/pickin52/HellnDragindex.html

Moseh, Xerxes doesn't find you attractive!

 

Well if they're attractive, then so is she:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I've edited my post above, so pl. read it again.

and, well, she (Moseh) is attractive in a middle age kind of way!

so, you do have an eye for women, do you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On a partly serious note, a typical true heterosexual finds the above images of women (not the ones provided by you) attractive. You know, sexually aggressive, masculine looking dames.

The true straight man goes for feminine beauties.

 

Are you trying to tell me these are 'feminine'??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

like this?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No they are more like androgonous.......

That is why 'straight' men don't go for such types. The heterosexual ones go for such types.

In my definition (based on nature)

'Straight' is not equal to 'heterosexual'

'Straight' is the opposite of 'heterosexual'/'homosexual'

Corollary:

'heterosexual' = 'homosexual'