95% of men have a sexual need for other men

Meanwhile buddha you may find this link helpful in sorting out your true feelings:

http://www.youth.org/yao/docs/i-think-article-gay.html

You claim to answer all questions but have answered none from me:

Answer those above and this one:

3) Men rule the world, always have done, so why did they create a world that was anti male bonding if thye themselves as a majority in every culture felt this way?

You cannot explain it away as religion, as men designed all religions. So if male bonding was main stream then it would have been dominant and not surpressed as you state. Why would MOST men 95% of worlds population throughout the entire history of mankind TEACH that female bonding is right and male bonding is wrong? Why, why not do both? Satisfy reproductive requirement and 'male bonding according to buddha' requirement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bhudda1 - I give up. You ascribe an importance to sexual orientation (or gender, or whatever the hell you call it) that does not match the way I live my life. I have male friends, female friends, old friends, young friends, gay friends, bisexual friends, heterosexual friends, married friends, divorced friends, single friends. The particular thing that interests me about them is that they are friends.

Continue in your belief, contrary to the evidence, that the majority of males have been shoehorned into unnatural behviour. I shall continue to believe that it is utter tripe.

I am now taking Hercules' advice and placing you on ignore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am NOW going to come out of 'this is obviously crap mode' and prove you wrong buddha as you are defying belief with your nonsense. Proof you want proof you shall have.

1) attached definition of 'male bonding' and fact that it DOES not exist in any animal group other than chimp and human, reason IT IS learned.

"Male bonding is a term that is used in ethology, social science, and in general usage to describe patterns of friendship and/or cooperation in men (or in the case of ethology: males of various species). The exact meaning of the term differs across contexts.

In ethology, a species is said to have male bonding if the males regularly form coalitions in which they mutually support each other, especially if such coalitions are used to attack other groups or individuals. Male bonding is not very common in animals, but it is found in both chimpanzees (e.g. raiding behaviour) and humans (e.g. war). Although females occasionally participate in such groups that kill others, they are normally a minority in a coalition that is composed mostly of males.

In the context of human relationships, male bonding is used to (sometimes jokingly or informally) describe friendship between men, or the way in which men befriend each other. The expression is sometimes used synonymously with the word cameraderie. Friendships among men are often based on shared activities, instead of emotional sharing, which is more typical of women's friendships. Stereotypical common activities of male friends include watching sports on television, drinking beer, or going for a cigarette. First widely-noticed use of the term was in MEN IN GROUPS (1969;2004) by anthropologist Lionel Tiger."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

2) proof number 2 that male bonding is learned behaviour and dominates in those cultures most likely to exist where women are in bondage, pakistan for example, where are you from again Buddha?


http://www.gendergappers.org/2000-013.htm

Meanwhile you say it is religion that forced men to forgoe their natural male on male bonding ways, when in actual fact the evidence is to the contrary!

"Take for instance the way boys/men have always, and still are, trained to bond with each other and contrast with how girls/women have always, and mostly still are, trained in bondage. While in most countries, some women appear to be their "own man," as it were (since with good reason there is no comparable phrase carrying the same meaning that would apply to females), the fact remains that this has only been true for the last hundred years or so. And there are still many countries where women still remain totally in bondage.

Even now most cultural institutions consider her the property of her husband (MRS.) Marriage ceremonies STILL find her "given away" by her father (male) to her husband (male). Her reproductive process may be state controlled and in the U.S.A. is in danger of being totally taken out of her control by federal mandate.

But, there have always been a few women who resisted this bondage programming, and their number increases every day, which may indicate that bondage is not merely a genetic anomaly but is culturally enforced programming.

We see male bonding begin early in life. Little boys will band together in a club and put up signs, "no gurls allowed." There is no evidence that this is genetic but plenty of signs that it is a behavior that is learned from imitation of older boys and men.

The ritualistic and complicated handshakes combine with additions to a language that transforms the mother tongue. They produce secret phrases amounting to a nonverbal code that boys carry into adulthood. Or it can be one word like, WHASSUP?

That word hopped out of a T.V. ad for beer and now permeates sports talk radio, becoming a common "guy greeting." In a Washington Post article by Paul Farhi it is defined as "a classic male bonding moment, a verbal high-five. It's pronounced low and throaty, heavy on the testosterone altogether slow and silly..."

But, there have always been men who resisted bonding programming which may indicate that it is not simply a genetic anomaly but learned behavior which now is exacerbated by the emergence of more and more SELF-DEFINED WOMEN.

The prime institution that fosters both bonding and bondage is religion. Males defined it and it defines them as leaders, BONDED to the godhead by gender. It defines women in bondage, as a natural/normal state and is especially obvious in countries where women are not allowed to go to school or work and must have permission from a male parent or husband to go outside of their home."

My guess is you come from one of those countries, most likely Pakistan, where women are in bondage and the men 'bond'.

I'm right aren't I?

 

Buddah, you are quite maddening. I don't need to "steel myself" to "take forced sex with women". My body "steels itself" quite naturally via blood flow and there has never been an element of force (I don't object to those kinds of games, I've just never met a woman who wants to play them).

One way for secretly homosexual males to satisfy their needs, free from social pressures, would be, perhaps, to have homosexual pornography delivered anonymously to their door. I've never been tempted to do this. Can you please tell me why? Am I really so much in denial that I can't even bring myself to satisfy my intense, repressed desires in an atmosphere of total privacy? Please tell me it isn't so!

 

You want proof Buddha that what you are saying is crap:

I have just provided it:

I have proved via those two links and snippets the following:

1) Male bonding is only seen in chimp and human society and IS NOT genetic but learned behaviour.

The end

 

I'll lump my posts togetether for your ease of reply.

2) proof number 2 that male bonding is learned behaviour and dominates in those cultures most likely to exist where women are in bondage, pakistan for example, where are you from again Buddha?


http://www.gendergappers.org/2000-013.htm

Meanwhile you say it is religion that forced men to forgoe their natural male on male bonding ways, when in actual fact the evidence is to the contrary!

"Take for instance the way boys/men have always, and still are, trained to bond with each other and contrast with how girls/women have always, and mostly still are, trained in bondage. While in most countries, some women appear to be their "own man," as it were (since with good reason there is no comparable phrase carrying the same meaning that would apply to females), the fact remains that this has only been true for the last hundred years or so. And there are still many countries where women still remain totally in bondage.

Even now most cultural institutions consider her the property of her husband (MRS.) Marriage ceremonies STILL find her "given away" by her father (male) to her husband (male). Her reproductive process may be state controlled and in the U.S.A. is in danger of being totally taken out of her control by federal mandate.

But, there have always been a few women who resisted this bondage programming, and their number increases every day, which may indicate that bondage is not merely a genetic anomaly but is culturally enforced programming.

We see male bonding begin early in life. Little boys will band together in a club and put up signs, "no gurls allowed." There is no evidence that this is genetic but plenty of signs that it is a behavior that is learned from imitation of older boys and men.

The ritualistic and complicated handshakes combine with additions to a language that transforms the mother tongue. They produce secret phrases amounting to a nonverbal code that boys carry into adulthood. Or it can be one word like, WHASSUP?

That word hopped out of a T.V. ad for beer and now permeates sports talk radio, becoming a common "guy greeting." In a Washington Post article by Paul Farhi it is defined as "a classic male bonding moment, a verbal high-five. It's pronounced low and throaty, heavy on the testosterone altogether slow and silly..."

But, there have always been men who resisted bonding programming which may indicate that it is not simply a genetic anomaly but learned behavior which now is exacerbated by the emergence of more and more SELF-DEFINED WOMEN.

The prime institution that fosters both bonding and bondage is religion. Males defined it and it defines them as leaders, BONDED to the godhead by gender. It defines women in bondage, as a natural/normal state and is especially obvious in countries where women are not allowed to go to school or work and must have permission from a male parent or husband to go outside of their home."

My guess is you come from one of those countries, most likely Pakistan, where women are in bondage and the men 'bond'.

I'm right aren't I?

 

No, in the modern western world homosexual men are not disowned in this manner.

No, because this isn't the case

Perhaps some insecure men, afraid of "coming out" do this, yes. But certainly not every man has these desires for other men. Not 100%, not 95%. It's probably around 10-30% depending on the geographical location

And this bothers you why? Are you heterophobic? Why shouldn't a man brag about his love life?

 

The second question is a secret.

Before I answer the first question, let me ask you how many men have you slept with? Are you married? Do you like dicks? Big ones or small?

 

Because this is directly related to men feeling ashamed about their same-sex needs.

 

Because the social masculinity and its pressures are fixed in such a manner that sex with women brings you social manhood and power, while sex with men, even an acknowledgment of its need brings takes your social manhood away, imposes social femininity and powerlessness on you.

You feel proud because the society values that sex and rewards you for it. You feel ashamed of your same-sex feelings because the society denigrates and punishes you for it.

 

Buddha put your Dr Lionel Tiger books down and answer the questions, failure to do so is to acknowlege defeat.

 

Your failure to answer the question : Are you having sex exclusively with men, demonstrates that you are either as stated above, ashamed of your same sex needs or ashamed of the fact you are in the 5% that prefers women, which is it?

 

And it cannot possibly be anything to do with men being boastful about pretty much everything?

"Hey man, I got a new fridge, it has a TV!"
"Well, I got a new RV, it has cable and a PC!"
"Hey people, I just bought a yaucht"
*Bloke 1 and Bloke 2 stare open mouthed at Bloke 3*
"Wanna go fishing?"
*They go fishing, and nothing sexual happens because they don't feel the need to. Instead they drink beer and crack jokes, and catch fish*

 

I never let any blokes on my yacht.

Only birds.

Preferably with big tits.

 

See, bragging again. What makes you think that this bragging is to hide the individuals attraction for the same sex?

 

You haven't answered my question? Does that mean you are accepting defeat?

Why would a man feel ashamed about his same-sex feelings? Do you think this has something to do with how our society works? Or is the problem in the individual and not the society?

 

Try saying, "hey isn't that man sexy! I would love to see his dick!"

and then feel socially proud about it.

 

Try saying, "I never let any birds sit on my yacht.......only blokes.....preferably with big dicks" in a boastful, manly tone!

 

Don't make such distant connections. Look at the closer connection.

People boast about sex with women because it gets them immediate social power and superiority.

In other words they do it because it gets them social manhood. Social manhood is the key for survival as a man in our society.