95% of men have a sexual need for other men

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Buddha1, Jan 29, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Don't worry about my feelings. I am not here to sort out my feelings.

    I'm here to discuss a social problem. A deep rooted social problem.

    If you are new to my posts, let me tell you, I'm not basing these assertions on my personal feelings or needs. That would be ridiculous. It would be much easier for me to go to a 'gay' cruising place and get good sex than waste my time arguing things with a distant heterosexual society which is not going to make any difference for me.

    In short it is not personal.

    I have been working with straight men on the ground level for the past 11 years. I am sharing what I saw. I saw huge gaps between what the west has been teaching us and how things existed behind their masks with men. I did a lot of research --- both personal and academic on the issue. And I held long discussions --- both individually (as in counseliing etc.) and Focus group discussion with men. And what I found was a deep rooted conspiracy against men. This discussion board is just a part of my efforts to discuss these issues with a larger audience.

    It is not possible to explain all that in one past. But I have tried my best, several times, and also recently.......it seems you don't read my replies. You seem to be on a trip of your own.

    Things are not as simple as you think they are.

    Elephants are extremely powerful animals. But they still are ruled by humans who treat them like their slaves. And elephants willingly comply.

    Being powerful does not guarantee that you cannot be ruled.

    Social training and conditioning can control your behaviour and attitudes away from your natural needs, and can make you divert your natural powers to work against yourself.

    Men are powerful, but it does not mean that they ruled the world. There are several evidences that in the beginning feminine gendered males --- who were not quite the part of the powerful masculine group --- served as priests and authoritative figures whom everyone listened to and obeyed.

    It is possible that while men engaged themselves in fighting battles and stuff, feminine gendered men ran the society by being the link between the male and female groups.

    Marriage institution was created to fill a very important social need of the time. To sustain the growing need for children in the society.

    The answer to your question is, that men lost their freedom and powers gradually. Very, very gradually to be noticed by any one generation. Remember, in the early days there were no books or recorded histories and no social science.

    You must understand that the power of men comes from being with each other. Broken from each other they are isolated, vulnerable and weak. The story of male oppression is the story of gradually isolating him from other men.

    By the time men knew it, they had lost a lot of their social space to bond with each other. But for a long long time they managed by creating enough space which co-existed with the marriage system to cater to their same sex needs. Till the time of the Greeks they had found a balance between the marriage institution and the man's need to bond sexually with other men.

    But that is when Christianity came and men lost their battle. Man had already become much weaker, and Christianity brought in the power of 'god' to break men completley from each other.

    After that male bonds went compeletely undergrouond, where surprisingly they survived in disguise till the modern times. They could survive because the society was still basically divided into male and female spaces. The females had no way to know what was going on inisde the male space. And the men hid their true selves and gave them an image closer to heterosexuality (but not quite).

    An important tool for subjugating men had traditionally been to involve men in putting pressure on each other to have sex with women and to disown their sexual need for men. This peer-pressure was made possible by making these things the most important part of the men's competition for social manhood. Of course, in male only groups men found a way by creating excuses for their same-sex encounters --- and one of them was unavailability of women.

    But in modern times heterosexualisation changed all that. Male only spaces were made mixed gender and men lost all privacy and breathing spaces. Same-sex bonds had no place to survive in the hostile heterosexual space. They were forcefully dragged out of their hiding --- by continuously shouting 'homo', 'homo' and naturally most of it disappeared. What still remained was labelled 'homosexual' and marginalised into a separate social gender.

    But just because only a few men cared to fight against all odds to take up the 'homosexual' label doesn't mean that only a few men have same-sex needs.

    You know nothing about the entire history of mankind. I think you should do some reading.

    You don't even know that till recently female bonding was 'wrong' in most parts of the world. Marriage was only limited to procreation and family matters. It had little to do with love, romance and female bonding.

    Female bonding was seen as an unmanly thing.

    What you see today as the 'reality' in the west was not always so, even if your society wrongly portrays things as such.

    Btw, Why does the society need to teach that female bonding is right and male bonding is wrong if things are already naturally so?
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    However it is true that bragging about one's sexual interest in women is also used widely amongst men to disguise their sexual interest in men.

    In fact when two straight men get involved in a sexual activity together......the first thing they do is brag a lot about their exclusive sexual interest in girls......and that they attach no significance whatever to what they are going to do just now.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    I will see to it that you Ophiolite never meddle with my threads again.

    Everytime, you are conrnered, everytime you are forced to get into a real discussion, you put me on 'ignore'. You must have put me on ignore for the fifth or sixth time now.

    And it happens everytime I ask you a specific question.


    Everytime you make a comeback after a few weeks as a troll calling me liar and other names. When forced, everytime you involve me in the same discussion again and again by putting up the same questions.

    Don't you dare to confront my posts again. I will keep this post as my link to remind other posters that you are not a person whose remarks or posts hold any validity or respect.

    You are now a certified troll. I don't think you have an iota of shame.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Continue to believe what ever you want for all I care. But don't ever challenge me on my posts again!
  8. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Well, I appreciate that.

    But you cannot go far if you are not on the side of the truth.

    I am sure, like Ophiolite, you too will lose. But like all 'heterosexuals' instead of gracefully accepting defeat, you will just call me liar/ fool and chicken out.

    This is how male-bonding is described by the heterosexual society.

    That does not mean it is true. This is part of the notions that I'm challenging.

    This is what exists on the outside. It does not necessarily mean that the inner reality will be the same.

    Of course male-bonding includes all that which is described. But in nature and in male-only societies human groups, male-bonding invariably includes sexual bonds.

    In short, this does not constitute as an evidence that male bonding does not involve sexual bonds.

    And of course, the thing about male bonds as described above are definitely found in animals. Can you tell me one mammal where males don't bond in separate groups?
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2006
  9. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member




  10. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    "there were no books or recorded histories and no social science.[/B]"

    So you yourself acknowledge that everything you have said on this matter is pure conjecture as there IS NO RECORDED HISTORY OF THIS MALE BONDING!


    Proof 3

    you say feminine gendered men priests and such are the reason that males stopped bonding (having anal sex) with other men

    We existed for many thousands of yrs before priests came into existance, and we could have only done that if we reproduced, so how did all this reproduction take place without these femenine genered priests dictating to the 'real men?'

    What evidence do you have that before religion, men preffered men.
    I have proved religion is what is at the root of male bonding and female bondage especially in India which is where you are from isn't it!

    Dr Lionel Tiger is a known crackpot and I know he is your ONLY source of reference for your crackpot ideas.

    YOU have failed to answer these questions so I ask them again. Failure to answer them is to admit defeat.

    If you can't reply then you are ashamed? If you are ashamed then this is evidence of your desperate need to prove what you feel is unnatural to be natural.



    The example you give about elephants demonstrates that you consider the males who bond with males to be less intelligent, weaker and passive, thus NOT strong. Elephants can only be domesticated for three reasons: they are passive...they are non agressive and they are less intelligent. So your argument that the 95% masculine men who prefer men were overuled by the femenine 5% means that the 95% were physically weaker, mentally weaker and passive. Thus men who prefer men ARE NOT the stronger. THUS survival of the fittest prevailed, THUS through natural selection, male bonding practices if they ever existed in the numbers you describe, DWINDLED out, becuase men who prefer men were shown to be WEAKER in all repsects.

    Your answers to the above are.........
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2006
  11. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    That would be useful for gay men I suppose.

    It wouldn't be much help for mainstream men I'm afraid.
  12. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    You Buddha Are Alleging To These Forums That You Are Saying Something New, All Your Information Comes From One Book, Dr Lionel Tigers Book, He Has A New One Out About Men Are Becoming The Second Sex And Women Are All Powerful Perhaps You'd Like To Discuss That Book Now You've Exhausted The First, Passing Off His Ideas As Your Own.
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Go Girl!!! Show no mercy!

    Loving every minute, especially since I can't see Bhudda1's replies.
  14. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Lol. that's an extremist feminist site. Feminism is just a human ideology and like other ideologies has some element of truth, but has several loopholes.

    Equality between men and women is a heterosexual ideal. If you're going to live in the same society, even if it is artificial, it is better to live as equals.

    But this equality thing is taken too far when it starts to mean being the same.

    There are some men and women who are the same. Some women are a lot like men, and some men are a lot like women. But on the whole men and women are different enough that makes living together and sharing everything together a difficult proposition.

    And for all their cries of equality and 'same' treatment, women still become mad when men use their toilets. That doesn't prevent them from wanting to intrude into men's lockerrooms in the name of equality.

    It is true that women, especially feminists hate male-bonds. Because men are powerful as long as they bond. But women are largely supportive of 'homosexuals' --- because that is the feminine gendered isolated male, who does not pose a threat, and is the same as women in many respects.
  15. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    So you agree you're a faggot!
  16. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    It's funny how people who don't have valid arguments keep coming back to personal comments.

    Here you almost make it seem as if to have read that alleged book is a crime, that would expose me and everything I have said as a lie.

    For your kind information though, I have not read that book. But I'm sure glad that someone else too has been talking about it.

    I guess men in each generation have understood what is going wrong and in their own way and circumstances the brave men have been trying to bring sense into this world.

    Thanks for telling me about the book. If I ever get hold of it, I'd definitely love to read it.

    It only adds credibility to what I say.

    No need to shout though. You only shout when someone refuses to listen. I'm all ears --- if you keep within the rules and avoid name calling --- including calling me gay.
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    It must be very comfortable to ignore the truth.

    Actually that is exactly how the real heterosexual society works. You don't like male sexual bonds, just pretend they don't exist.

    And for people who insist on it, well pack them away with 'homo' labels into a ghetto.......that way you wouldn't have to deal with the issue.

    You are a true heterosexual down to the last bit. Congratulations!
  18. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    "Beep beep I'm an answering machine
    I mean to say I say what I mean
    Beep beep I've got very strong views
    Plug in any loop tape you choose..

    'Closed Groove' - Stiff Little Fingers
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Woman, I know you are desperate to prove me wrong. But don't forget to follow the rules. By distorting what I say or accept, you are not going to win an issue.

    Gosh, are all heterosexuals like that? Is that a biological thing?

    Btw, there is a lot of recorded history of male-bonds amongst ancient humans. A lot of it is destroyed. A lot remains.

    Can I borrow one from you?

    Will you come up from a personal discussion to a real larger one. We are discussing important issues here.

    Are you pea brained or what?

    Gosh, you can't simplify things like that? Apart from the fact that that particular statement of mine is a speculation (based on the position that Berdaches hold in American Indian tribes) ......no one here is talking about anal sex between men......and you have forgotten to grasp the spirit of what I've said. You are not even following the letter.

    This happens when you have a mental block, and you don't want to consider any other thing apart from what you know or believe.

    If you want a real discussion, you have to be open to the truth, and be willing to accept that it could be away from what you believe. I am open to truth. Just get me enough evidences that would belie what I have seen.

    I'll forget the useless crap you've written. Will just concentrate on the key point raised.

    Men participate in the reproduction process even when they live in male only groups and bond with each other. That is the basic mammal behaviour.

    Apart from the above fact, on an average 15% mammalian males of a species (I'll talk about how I arrived at that percentage later) is into bonding with females rather than the males.

    Several ancient tribes that exhibit the male trait I am talking about have survived till this date. Some of them live in New Papa Guinea. So it is clear that male-bonds do not come in the way of reproduction in any way.

    Ancient Greeks! Those are the best kept records.

    Then there are the pre-historic tribes that still survive in isolated places --- like some parts of Africa, New papa Guinea and the Indian ocean.

    Of course, there are enough evidences from post religion world as well. I have shared the paper about the U.S.. I have also shared media reports about widespread sexual relations between men in Afghanistan.

    You have proved anything. Give me space to breathe. I'll come to that shit soon!

    I can see several crackpots here. Ophiolite is one of them. And he is a coward. Spuriousmonkey is another such being. They believe in things which they cannot back up. They challenge you based on the power of popular beliefs. But when you confront them they run away.

    Failure to answer them means quite simply that who I sleep with is a personal thing which has got fucking nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

    If I'm ashamed it is proof that the society has created unreasonable pressures on men to hide their same-sex desires. Why would the society want to do that?

    What country do you live in where women getting fucked for fun is prefereable to marriage.

    If only you'd read carefully before responding.

    I clearly said that men have become weakened long before religion came. Religion only worsened their situation. The final blow has been given by heterosexualisation.

    It only proves that you can socially train living beings to live in ways detrimental to their nature.

    I vaguely remember one TV programme from the west that was for women where an expert was talking about how men can be trained like dogs.

    Social training is successful because it is applied since a person is born. And since the social environment is already changed artificially it accepts the hostile environment as natural.

    A bird caged from birth will become attached to the person who caged it. It would forget to fly, would be scared of the sky and would refuse to leave the cage --- which for it is its only home.

    Not quite. It was separating men from men that made them weaker. All artificial human ideologies start with a good intent but later degenerate.

    In fact men made a sacrifice for the betterment of the society --- by agreeing to be bound into marriage. It was over several centuries that they gradually became isolated enough that they were no more powerful.

    All this can be verified from historical records. But it involves systematic discussion and a lot of time. Not the kind of swift and overzealous discussion that you are attempting to make.

    Also I never said that 95% of men are masculine gendered and 5% are feminine gendered.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2006
  20. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    I have edited the above post so pl. read it again.
  21. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    In fact I can prove this point very well from a personal experience.

    The following incident proves very well how our society targets to train males away from male bonds in order to civilise them, as well as to ensure their participation in the reproduction process.

    I went on a trekking tour last year to the mountains. In the remote hills I spoke to the horsemen who ferried me on a particular difficult terrain.

    I was intrigued when he told me that the male horses always keep by the female horses side, where ever she went. He never leaves her side.

    Now this was against what I had observed and read about mammalian male behaviour. So I probed him more on the subject. This is what he told me.

    The horses have a natural tendency to bond with other male horses and they often form a pair. Once the male horse is paired with another male horse it is almost impossible to separate them. Besides the fact that you can't make them mate with the female at will, these bonded horses are impossible to tame. E.g. if you beat up one horse the other horse will strike at you.

    For this reason the horse breeders keep male horses from bonding with each other. They are kept away from each other and forced to bond with females from an early time. But it aint easy.

    E.g. this particular horse, when he was shifted with a female horse......he refused to eat for days. But then slowly he relented and got used to her. Slowly he developed intimacy with her. And today, she is her only companion, mate, love ...... whatever.

    But the thing is that it didn't come about naturally.

    Human male was similarly force trained and kept from bonding with other men. Because, male bonds are difficult to civilise. And because once male bonds are formed it is impossible to force them into the marriage institution.

    That fully explains the society's intense mechanisms (including pressures, punishments, rewards) to check in male bonds. It perfectly explains the social/ religious hostility towards such bonds.
  22. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    So you're a faggot aren't you!
  23. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    No, Buddah, I assure you I'm 100% heterosexual. Incidentally, please don't use terms like faggot - it's very derogatory.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page