95% of men have a sexual need for other men

I don't think she is masculine as in masculine gender.

Her feature are like a male, but her expression is totally feminine.

Also, I don't think it is done to call anyone ugly......people have different features and one man's poison can be another man's ..... what was that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moseh looks like a 'whore' though. The real heterosexuals would love them. The straight men abhor whores!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've already enumerated 3 points to refute the above statement. here are 2 more:

a.) When there is no practical or accessible way that you can give vent to even your most basic emotional/ sexual needs, then however much you may be in touch with them, you learn to live in its absence and after initial 'steeling up' it stops hurting, and life goes on. This is why suppressing of sexual needs is effective.

Add this to the situation when in a heterosexual society, your sexual needs are not even allowed to develop? 95% of men are born with a sexual need for other men. But this need like most other basic emotional needs, needs to be developed and cultivated during one's lifetime, especially the youth. Cutting yourself off from this need is easier when it is not even developed. But all this has huge costs for men --- costs that are not readily visible from the outside......A climber plant must climb up to be happy and healthy!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

b.) Here is another anecdote that shows how the sexual need of male for other males is mutilated and males forced to be heterosexual:

EVIDENCE FROM DOMESTICATED ANIMALS

I went on a mountain trek.

I was surprised to hear from my horseman that his horse always walks by the mare wherever she went. They were kind of inseperable. And this was pretty much the story of the rest of the horses. It really seemed that animals after all are heterosexual, if they have such natural intimacy with each other. Till the horseman gave me this further bit of information.

These male horses have to be trained from their youth in order to make them so close to female horses. Initially, the male horse did not want to go near the female horse. He even refused to eat when forced into a room with her. But the trainers forced the horse for months, till he got used to it and developed a close bond with her. This is more or less the story of all the horse couples.

On the other hand, the bond between two male horses is natural and spontaneous. A horse will not care about his life and fight back if, say, someone beats up his partner. For this reason male bonds are considered a menace, and horses forced to bond with females. They prevent male horses from developing intimacy – and never put them together.

Isn’t it what they do with humans. Put pressure on men and train them to bond with women. Take away all other avenues from them.

 

BUDDHA.. I apologise. you may not be gay... you are clearly messed up.

have fun with that though... but never say you were not warned to repent for your honest negative un-natural tendencies which you claim are somehow natural.

i would leave you with one simple last argument.

could it not be that man is just really horny... and as such.. he just needs to get off... and if they discover gay sex is availible.. they might do so..

not because they actually desire a another man... but because a man will do.

you have to remember.. some men .. with no moral background have done every kind of sick crazy sexual thing.. with not just men... but animals..

a wall.. a doll.. a rug.. sheep... a dog... you name it..

do not kid yourself... man is a wild sexual beast...
and while gay activity maybe availible.. it is not by design.. it is simply possible.

by nature and genetics and design.. clearly.. there is woman...

woman is by her nature designed to be desireable.. attractive..

so much so that all men will want her even if she isnt that good looking.
she smells different.

she smells good.. desireable.

so.. there is no way or basis for your arguement for all men being naturally gay.
there is plenty of evidense to say man is a moralless sexual animal who obsessives over his need for sex... and without learned reasons for what where and why..
such a horny man.. will have sex with anything.

it is religion and culture and communal living which trained man.. to do and think that gay sex is wrong.. as is animal sex.

and modern science has revealed why... it spreads desiese........ quickly.

one sick man.. can infect how many others in his lifetime?

but a sick man with one loving woman... does not spread anything farther than the woman.. thus for the prupoes of the survival of the species as tribes and cities...

sexual behavior must be regulated... why?

because men are wild horney beasts.. who just want to get off.

-MT

 

Well, as long as people don't cross their limits and become insulting, I have no ill will against even my worst opponent. :m:

But this is a discussion forum, and if you disagree with something, surely you are free to discuss things, prove them wrong, show counter arguments and all that.....but getting angry that the subject is being broached or getting insulting is not done.

It is difficult to say who is messed up. The individual or the society.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To be honest, all men are messed up. That is what the society wants us to be. All messed up. Whenever you go against human nature, you'll end up being messed up --- and men have several reasons to be messed up about.

But the society also wants us to cover up that mess with neat, clean, good looking and macho masks --- which are all unreal (we have the real thing but we are not allowed access to it!). All men learn to cover up their mess with these masks, while they deal with their mess in isolation and die with it.

But the irony is that each man believes his mess is unique and the other men are really the spick and span masks that they portray. So he hides and guards his 'mess' with the urgency of do or die. Yet everyone's mess is basically the same.

All I am doing is to remove these masks, and taking this mess out in the open so that I can show to other men that there is nothing to hide about it, that all men share it. I am taking enormous personal risks, but the fact that I'm anonymous helps a lot.

Removing men's fear, stigma and shame about that mess is the first step in disentangling or cleaning that mess.

Therefore, I may look untidy and all messed up, but then it is all for the purpose of unwinding everybody's common mess --- the person who cleans other people's mess will end up getting dirty!

And I know that insecure men will continue to throw dirt at me to discourage me.....but I'm prepared for it!

 

As for the above, they're mostly your personal opinions and so they don't count. If you have anything to present that can refute my contention here, you're welcome.

I think our friend Giambattista here will be more than happy to engage himself in an intellectual discourse over the above points raised. He loves to discuss such issues with religious people......I think its a waste of time. (But Giambattista, on another thread please!)

Basically, what you're saying is that 95% of men may have a sexual need for men but it is in the interest of the society to suppress those needs. This is a totally different issue, that I don't want on this thread. Maybe if you take this discussion to another thread, I'll join you there.

 

It is difficult not to believe something you see all around you......and if 'sceince'
says otherwise you start suspecting science rather than distrust your overwhelming experience.

The problem is that in a man's world the rule is that what appears is not real and what is real is hard to see.

That is the perfect way to avoid finding out the truth. For science and surveys have a way of judging things from their appearance.

We have already seen in the thread "Pressures on men to be heterosexual" that the fear of same-sex needs is so deeply ingrained in men's psyche, and that the inner mechanisms that the society has built within individuals to block their same sex needs are so delicate that men would not even acknowledge it to themselves and would readily go by the social excuses given by the society (y'know the dominance and stuff!).

Pressing a button on a poll that asks if you have a sexual need for men will sound disastrous for that delicate mechanism.

There were some examples from the west we've discusses that showed how even men who are aware of their sexual need for men go around as if there is a hidden eye watching their every move, and they try not only to control and misrepresent their feelings even when no one is around, but they also seek to extinguish/ change their feelings themselves.

It is not that 95% of men are sitting all grumpily aware of their sexual feelings for men, and hateful of the social oppression that they're waiting for me to give them a poll where they can push on the appropriate button to free them from their prison.

Indeed, even in my own country --- which is a mixture of macho Afghan society and the heteroseuxal west --- most straight (straight in oriental sense not heterosexual sense) men who have relationships with other men whether gay or straight) continually deny that they have any sexual interest in men at all. They will be in relationship with men for years on end, and do every kind of sexual act with them, (in my country finding girls is not difficult at all!) even have receptive anal sex, yet they will say that they don't feel anything for women, and will make excuses for the contradictions arising out of their relationship with another man.

 

To get a deeper insight on how men control their sexual impulses for other men, even when they're all by themselves, please see this series of posts here on the thread:

Post 1

Post 2

Post 3

Post (4)

Post 5

It is obvious that in the present scenario it would serve no usefull purpose (i.e. if we want to find out the real truth!) just to ask men how they feel abou it, even if it is completely anonymous.

Men are extremely (ill) motivated by the society (and there is an equal fear in their minds that drives them) to willingly suppress and disown their sexual need for men which has terribly terribly negative 'social masculinity' value. They don't want to say yes to a poll, because they'd rather believe they don't have it.

The same motivation and fear that drives them to seek emotional/ sexual bonds with women.

 

How do you put an anonymous pole up to see who is gay/bi?

Sorry couldn't stop myself!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Proof to the contrary may only be provided once the original proof is presented, i would consider yours at best a work in progress, but do keep trying it is an interesting study.

Or that people can barely understand your posts and what you are talking about other than the basic concept, they are incredably hard to read, follow, and keep up with at times, let alone reply. Saying people are gay and some dont "come out" is perfectly understandable, to say 95% requires proof of the percentage, which i fail to see, it may be that in your experience that is what you've discovered but other peoples experience may be entirely different. It really has little to do with science and what that tells you, and all to do with life experience, people either find others of the same sex attractive or they dont, this determines their sexuality, whether or not they hide something is near impossible to tell.

Points A) and C) seemed to make little sense, i get the impression you feel society influences what people find attractive and conditions them, from what i know its genetic if you prefer certain hair colours or facial features etc, either male or female could have these features depending on what they are, you may meet more of one sex that incorperates the things you like, if you're saying everyone would be bi if the right thing came along, most probably it would depend on the sexual activities because it is an entirely different process with different sexes.
Either way, to prove such you must create a non influental society and find that 95% settle with the same sex, most probably i would theorize this society dies out very quickly, but try it, we'll see.

Point B) is irrelavent, there was no comment about whats natural, it is natural to be straight to reproduce, but if no females are around or reproduction is not required yet sexual need is involved you have two options, same sex, or your own devices.
The parrot doesnt have a need to fly, it has been kept alive in a cage, wild birds most often fly to find food.
Points A2) and B2)

Is this what you're trying to prove? Provide evidence that they are born with this need, a simple post is all it takes, not this continuation.
The anecdote doesnt even prove the horse was gay, let alone count as proof of virtually everyone being gay.

To dismiss peoples disagreement with you as insecurity or hiding of something would be foolish, people tend to know by the time they are a certain age which way inclined they are and their acceptance of gays will vary, but i do advise you to ignore the usual religious views of how being gay is wrong etc as its evident it happens with some people.
I dont know if you are gay or have known a few gay people etc and to an extent there is validity in your arguements, but i would think your percentages need revising and perhaps clearer wording would help, along with correct usage of terms such as "straight" and "need" as it seems your definition easily leads to confusion, i wouldnt wish to be harsh on the theory but really i see very little which remotely proves your point, and i dont have the time nor energy to continuously dredge through these ongoing posts which seem to make little to no progress.

My experience is that most people like the opposite sex, or at the least prefer them, although some do experiment or just plain get horny and find inflatable ingred wasnt about at the time but best buddy bob was. Off the top of my head i wouldnt say more than 15% of people i know are actually bi or gay and have an interest in people of the same sex, they simply find the other attractive.
I enjoy reading such a different opinion at times but as for proving it i would think thats near impossible without creating a society of no influence, or education, on sexual orientation at all, im inclined to believe for reproductive purposes that male-female bonds(at least for sex) would be most common. There is a big difference from needing a male friend/figure in your life and being sexually orientated around him.

I simply couldnt help the tongue in cheek mention of it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I understand more the reasons why this wouldnt help your case, i apologise if i covered this to the counter in my above writings but i wrote the post as i was reading and i would find it difficult to go back and edit.
I would now find your position even harder to validate as theres no way to prove people are surpressing something, i would suppose its possible but on that basis we could be discussing absolutely anything.

 

You know even less about horses then men.

Only if you are insecure faggot would this apply to you. Most of us are very comfortable with our sexuality, we really don’t care what others think.

If, as you suggest 95% of men are sexual attracted to other men, but hide it via social engineering, there should be wildly differing ratios of gay and hetros in different cultures. But this is not the case. In all cultures the ratio is around the 5-6% mark. This strongly suggests that heterosexuality is the biological norm.

You must understand that morality is a biological mechanism, evolved to allow cultural success. That sexual self repression is a biological artefact, created by natural evolution to limit our sexual behaviour. We can’t grow as a culture if all we are after is immediate self gratification.

Of course this has even more deep seated evolutional origins. Simple fish have developed to inhibit sexual and predatorily behaviour to blood relatives, and ones own species.

Also your laughable ideal of a cross cultural multi generational sexual suppression holds absolutely no credence. In the history of man kind this has never been achieved.



Then on to fear, as you equate human sexual repression as a form of fear. I do many dangerous and fearful things as a matter of course. I have been scare almost to the point of in capacitance. Once you have learned to break through there is nothing that society can created to equal.

In my view there are two types of men. Pussies and men. Pussies are constrained by their insecurity and fear. Men seek risqué for the sake of risqué, adrenaline and mateship.

I have no fear of the noun or adjective GAY, nether do I care about the stereo typical labels associated to me by others. I have been to gay bars to be with friends. I have force work assosiates to look past their homophobic fear and successfully employ several openly gay individuals.

You Buddha are a stereo typical exemplification of the TROLL. By far an expert in the field. I classify you as a pussy. Scared, weak and insecure. Most notable is your angst of women. Your tone is of desperation, your need, aceptance. This is not the norm

Women dear Buddha are more alike then not. Femineity / Masculinity are but a small subset of the human attributes. The majority of human attributes are asexual and are shared equally between all of us. Your black and white analysis is a clear sign of youthful ignorance.

Thus to the last points as I have no more time for this.

You clearly have no significant sexual experience to draw from. It insults me that a youth like you should behave so arrogantly. There is no equal to the cunt, tits, and soft curves of a woman. Not to mention sight, sounds, and smells of a woman. Do you even know what cunts smell or tastes like?

Good sex is a night long event. The human ass is not built for good sex. I have penetrated many asses in my life but none could put up to the pounding, there is no lubrication, no voluntary muscle response (ever hear of butt plugs), and of course the distasteful shit content. I have allowed women to pound me with their devices but only to repay sexual gratification. Only I can penetrate myself for pleasure, and that is very limited.

Sex with men repulses me. I like my men to be powerful and courageous not submissive. A man that would bend for my satisfaction is a weak man, a pathetic man. I will never be interested in such individuals.

So as my women towel me down in the heat of sexual discourse, I know that your pet theory is based solely on sexual inexperienced. That one day you should let a man or woman penetrate you and discover why 95% of us are straight.

This is my last and only discourse to you, and I reply only because of my annoyance of the moderators lack of courage in shutting a troll like you down.

 

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.

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 suggest that you read the following threads:

- Heterosexuality is unnatural

- Gender orientation is Biological, and

- Masculinity and men.

Everything you're saying has been dealt in these threads.

You must understand that your analysis about me and my theory would have been valid only if I had been just an eager beaver teenager enthusiast, being overwhelmed by my own so-called 'homosexuality', and then trying to hotch up a theory on some vague, far-fetched and scattered incidences.

Far from it, I have been working with the mainstream male community in my country since the past 10 years. I have done extensive work with more than 50,000 men, including some --- what we (not the west) call --- homosexuals.

I had started out my work with the same notions that you have --- that the world being divided into minority gays and majority heterosexuals and everything else that flows from it.

What I found was compeletely different and overwhelming. It was so different from what the west has been teaching us (ever since the British came to our country) that it made me angry --- it was all a lie. Then I set out to investigate the overwhelmingly large gaps. I studied and observed people, I studied cultures, science, history, religion, customs and so on. I had long discussions with people --- from far and wide, including those who were working on the issues of gender, sexuality, HIV/ AIDS, etc., including many scholars.

What I have found is extremely shocking. I found out a deep rooted social conspiracy dating back at least a couple of thousand years ago --- a conspiracy against men, particularly the masculine gendered men who form the majority of the male population.

As I understood those gaps and uncovered the conspiracy, I developed my own theories and then tested them over and over again thousands of times during my work. It is after that that I have come here on this forum to share what I have found out.

I'm amazed by the difference between the response I get from masculine, mainstream men in my country and the 'prominent' response on this forum. But I have studied heterosexual societies in depth, and I know that this is only normal, since masculine gendered men live under a great pressure in the west. They are not empowered to speak. And those who oppose (most of them are not what the term heterosexual really signifies) are in a minority, but very powerful, so they do all the talking.

And yes about the definitions. English language is strange. It has several different meanings and usages for the same term --- using which the society easily manipulates natural concepts and phenomenons and presents a distorted view to the society. Nowhere is this more visible than in the arena of male gender and sexuality.

I have deliberated on length why western definitions of human gender and sexuality are invalid, and we can't have them as the starting point. My endeavour is to present to the world what the nature has ordained for men, and such extremely distorted social concepts will only take us away from reality. I have given a list of the definitions I've been using of these terms in the thread "heterosexuality is unnatural". Unfortunately, they have been merged such haphazardly that no matter how much I tried I can't retrieve them.

Perhaps this can help: post

 

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

 

I'm sure I know more about horses than you do. I've been through over 15 pages of discussion on how "there is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature". Besides those are the words of the horseman, not mine.

As for the rest of the crap you're posted --- I've really no time for people's personal opinions --- we are discussing reality here --- not what appears to be reality.

You wouldn't know, though. I've already mentioned that feminine gendered males can't relate to this phenomenon (the last post today on "men and masculinity". These pressures are meant for and are felt basically by masculine gendered, mainstream men. Unfortunately, the fem heterosexuals mistakenly feel themselves to be 'mainstream' because the mainstream guys pretend to be heterosexuals.

Peace.

 

And.....we have discussed the pressures that men face to be heterosexual in great detail in the thread "pressures on men to be heterosexual". Unfortunately, it is now lost in the vast unsearchable thread of "heterosexuality is unnatural". But all through my threads you'll find many unbeatable evidences of enormous pressures on men to be heterosexual.

On the thread "men and masculnity" we are discussing how these pressures are so effective on men.

 

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.

 

I have enormous evidences of how a group of people have, since the time of the Church, tried to explain away same-sex desires in a number of ways including what you've been saying.

Yet on what basis have some scientists claimed that it is a dominance behaviour? Because it doesn't fit Darwin's theory of sexual selection? And what is the validity of Darwin's theory of sexual selection (see the thread : Darwins' wrong about sexuality)? Many scientists are questioning it now, but for decades scientists have accepted it with closed eyes because anything that strengthens 'heterosexuality' is accepted without the required scientific rigours.

It's called 'circular reasoning'. You make a false presumption. And then make several other false conclusions using your earlier presumption and for validation you refer to the first presumption as if it were true.

From what we are told about Heterosexuality by the society --- heterosexuals can't even stand two guys kissing, they are supposed to puke at the idea of having sex with men, their 'willie is not supposed to stand-up' when confronted with a guy --- I fail to understand why someone would torture oneself so much only to teach the other a lesson. 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!

In the next post I'll present excerpts from Bagemihl's work that would surely refute your contention that male-male sexual behaviour is a dominance syndrome:

 

Excerpts from the research of the biologist Bruce Bagemihl:

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FROM THE ANIMAL KINGDOM (SEA CREATURES)

BOTTLENECK DOLPHINS

"Male Bottlenose Dolphins form lifelong pair-bonds with each other. Adolescent and younger males typically live in all-male groups in which homosexual activity is common; within these groups, a male begins to develop a strong bond with a particular partner (usually of the same age) with whom he will spend the rest of his life.......paired males sometimes take turns guardingor remaining vigilant while their partner rests. They also defends their mates against predators' attacks. On the death of his partner, a male may spend a long time searching for a new male companion --- usually unsuccessfully, since most other males in the community are already paired and will not break their bonds. If however, he can find another 'widower' whose male partner has died, the two may become a couple.

ORCAS OR KILLER WHALES

Homosexual interactions are an integral and important part of male Orca social life. During summers......males of all ages often spend the afternoons in sessions of courtship, affectionate, and sexual behaviours with each other........Usually only two Orcas participate at a time......The males roll around with each other at the surface, splashing and making frequent body contact as they rub, chase and gently nudge one another.......particular attention is paid by the males to each other's genital region, and often they initiate a behaviour known as the beak-genital orientation.....just below the water surface one male swims underneath the other in an upside-down position, touching and nuzzling the other's genital area with his snout or "beak". The males swim together in this position, maintaining beak-genital contact as the upper one surfaces to breathe; then they dive together, spiraling down into the depths in an elegant double-hellix formation......when the pair resurfaces after three to five minutes, they repeat the sequence, but with the positions of the two males reversed. In fact, almost 90% of all homosexual behaviours are reciprocal, in that the males take turns touching or interacting with one another. During all these interactions, the Orcas frequently display their erect penises, rolling at the surface or underwater to reveal the distinctive yard-long pink organs.

WEST INDIAN MANATEES

Male west Indian Manatees of all ages regularly engage in intense homosexual activities. In a typical encounter, two males embrace, rub their genital openings against each other, and then unsheathe or erect their penises and rub them together, often to ejaculation. During a homosexual mating, the two males often tumble to the bottom, thrusting against each other and wallowing in the mud as they clasp each other tightly. .....Lasting from two to three minutes, homosexual copulations are generally four to eight times longer than the heterosexual ones.....Before they engage in sexual activity males often "kiss" each other by touching their muzzles......

 

Can you imagine if these animals somehow developed brains and their society comes to a point such as ours where the males live under severe pressures of social masculinity. Can you see them becoming or pretending to be heterosexuals, just as we do today?

Or what if humans domesticate them, force them away from other males and train them to be 'heterosexuals', like they do with horses?