95% of men have a sexual need for other men

It's strange, because the other day I was reading an account by some heterosexual men who talked about how they liked their female partners to probe their anus!

Or are you saying that being so-called 'heterosexual' deadens the nerve endings in your anus.

By the way.....what you're saying is nothing more than a 'power' statement --- that is usually used in the society to denigrate and thus suppress same-sex desires (often by people who have strong such desires).

And it is for this reason that I doubt what you've claimed in your post.

This denigration process that makes men hate their same sex attraction (it is used on oneself and on others):

femininity = extremely lowly male, an outcast from the male society

receptive anal sex = femininity
(thus receptive anal sex has the worst denigrative value)

In a heterosexual society:
any sexual need for males = a desire to be fucked anally

So it is easy to see how the process of denigration and marginalisation of same-sex needs works in a heterosexual society.

In what I have observed, only about 30% of gay men go for anal intercourse......and almost none of the straight men care for anal sex with men --- they often go for things like mutual masturbation and stuff.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you hear that?
Are you ashamed yet, Buddha? Do you finally realise how wrong you are? How can you argue with cunt-smell?

This is by far one of the most enlightening posts I've ever read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is this refrain about anal sex, anyway?
I can prove I don't like guys, because I don't want anything shoved up "in me", if you know what I mean.

Millions of lonely (and not so lonely) men masturbate themselves to orgasm, and most of the time, there is no stimulation of other areas. But when it comes to male-male sexuality, suddenly it HAS to involve anal sex, or it doesn't work.

Don't quite get that logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

buddha
i am not attracted to men, never was, probably never will be.

i think james is right, maybe you should start a poll on the topic.

 

thats true but not with a penis.

 

No Lemming3K, its not because I dislike your personal opinions or what you've observed as an individual. I was once in your shoes. It is not possible for a layman to notice what I have found out. So I cannot expect you to know all that.

But, what bothers me is when you refuse to look at the evidences that I'm giving or when I'm sharing some of my experiences, but insist on what you've experiences as an individual. We live in a highly sophisticated society, you must know --- so many things that we say or do is unreal.

You must understand that 95% of men have a sexual need for men is what I've experienced (through work and personally) (--- and they don't reflect my needs, its what I observed in 95% of the men!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). It is difficult, almost impossible to 'prove' to the world what I saw behind people's masks. There can be no direct proof because men will not remove their masks. So I'm trying to prove it with indirect evidences -- which are just as good, in fact better than asking!

Really 100% of mammal males, 90% of Afghani males (at least parts of Afghan), my own experiences of counsellees who had an involuntary erection when being examined......can you find some reasons for this?

I'll give you an unbeatable hint. When there is no direct way to prove something --- look at something indirect but intricately linked to the issue.

Look at the nature and extent of influences that the society has in order to suppress same-sex desires in men. What kinds of pressures it uses, what are the costs of not disowning same-sex needs? Look at the history of pressures and how they have changed over the years (don't only look at gay men, they don't feel the brunt of pressures because they are feminine gendered)?

This will give you a very clear idea about what the heterosexual society is up against!

Clearly, people who feel strongly about the issue, don't even want people to speak positively about it --- since it may make people, esp. young people 'gay' (see anomalous e.g.)? It's that delicate an issue.

Do you now see what I mean?

I'm deliberately using a different set of definitions of the western terms. This is to bring out the point that these terms reflect the 'power equations' of different 'groups' rather than the reality. E.g. why 'heterosexuality' is referred to as 'straight' and same-sex needs are referrred to as 'gay' or 'queer', reflects not their natural position, but their forced denigration by the society.

My evidences will prove that the reality is the other way round. So I'm using the words straight and queer differently. But I have always given my explanations. It seems only people who have a mental block choose to get confused.

But I'll give it to you, it seems cultural differences confuse too, but we are all intelligent human beings capable of understanding different concepts --- especially those that have to do with nature, and not with cultures.

 

The word 'gay' is very misleading. By definition it refers to a minority of people --- and can't be seen in the context of mainstream 'nature' or 'behaviour'.

The terms 'gay' and 'heterosexual' also suggest that people are either this or that. The reality is different.

The horses, like all mammals, are not naturally inclined to form emotional bonds with females. By nature, their sexual and social bonds happen only with other males (90% to 100% in the case of mammals: source Bagemihl). It's not that they don't want sex with females, but in nature this need becomes prominent only when at a later stage in life they are ready for procreation. And this need is short term and no romance/ emotional attachments involved.

Humans change in that in horses: why? because male bonds are a menace --- they lead to hieghtened masculinity and are thus impossible to domesticate/ civilise. This is one of the main reasons why religions came down heavily on same sex bonds.

The horses refuse to bond with the females in the initial months. For some days they even refuse to eat food when seperated from their male companions and placed together with the female. Certainly, They are'nt excited about joining the female (clue: horses are not heterosexuals). But by force, you can change the realities. Horses (like humans) will learn to bond with anyone including frogs, dogs and humans, if they have no other option. So the male and female horses become what the humans call and glorify as 'inseperable companions'. But is it their nature? Besides they still don't really have sex unless it is time for mating, .....but when they want to have sex with a male, and none is availabe they'll make do with the females! Sounds familiar?

100% of men getting erection in front of a man, without any touching involved ---- doesn't add to 95%?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But don't worry, more evidences are on the way.

But frankly the percentage is negotiable!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But you have to disprove the 95% figure, and validate any other figure you might present!

 

There is no basis to presume that same-sex desires are genetic --- no more than opposite sex desire.

Point noted, and suitable action taken!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're not a dog, so you don't know why they mount. In my country young men often mount on each other, and jostle with each other a lot. They have a word for it, and it is acknowledged that they derive sexual pleasure out of it.

Sex is not only penetration!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

males often show their sexual liking for each other through these playful acts that look more like wrestling/ competition/ domination.

 

I would just advice you to ponder over why you feel the need to say this, when no one is asking people's personal preferences, and it is not going to prove a thing.

I'll tell you my overwhelming experience about such statements.

After I became convinced that almost every man has a sexual need for other men, it was time to test it and bring it up with other men. So in this workshop with 16 to 18 year old adolescents --- I carefully brought up the topic, as casually as possible, in order to ease up the boys, (I admit I was tense myself!)

It was the evening of the third day of the 5 full days workshop on masculinity, and the it was one hell of a workshop! The boys were absolutely involved all through the process that involved discussions, lecture, role-plays etc. The part that the boys got really moved about was when through a role play we showed how much pressure the boys were under to prove there sexual interest for girls.

So I nervously bring up the topic of sexual interest between men. Suddenly, there was complete silence. It was like I had dropped a bombshell. My own voice speaking came out so strikingly in the contrast of that silence that I became afraid of it.

And then I stopped. Allowing the boys to give their response. There was still complete silence. Then one boy in the front row --- he was my favourite because he was serious and kept other boys in discipline --- spoke out, quite confidently --- like was his style.

"Sir (he was the only one who insisted on calling me sir!), I had this tutor who once tried to put his hands on my lap, and I slapped him hard".

Fine I thought, here I was trying to ease boys up so they could talk about it, and here this guy said something that would make sure that nobody else brings up the topic.

He went on to tell us how when he got on the bus, a man tried to come and stand too near him --- and that it was so wierd!

That evenning I thought about how to deal with him. Of course the society gave such boys power to say all that, but it did mean that I will not be able to encourage people to open up.

Anyway, things did change, and we had some open talk about it. In essence some of the most macho boys, who didn't tire of talking about girls, complained that if they were to show their interest in men, others will call them 'eunuch' (our term for 'faggot'!).

But the thing that I wanted to emphasise was that --- this boy who said he hated sexual advances from men, continued to be in touch with me months after the workshops were over, because as I said he wanted to actively volunteer in our campaign on masculinity issues.

It was in those days that I noticed something funny about his behaviour towards me. He would stand disconcertingly close to me, while waiting for a bus --- that even in my country would be unusual between two men who are not friends. And there was such a sexual tension in his eyes. I sensed that and ignored that --- he was my student, and I had no sexual interest in him whatsoever.

That was in 2000. Since then I have noticed it in 100% of the cases that when someone says he has no sexual interest in men, without there being any need to say it, you can be sure, that the person harbours a strong sexual need for other men. (I don't need to tell about other such cases, or do I?)

Do you think the above mentioned guy would vote --- even anonymously that he has any sexual interest in men? --- I can prove that he would vehemently say 'no'.

 

So let me see.....

You keep a gun on a man's head and ask him to say that the sky is purple, otherwise he will be shot!

Then you invite me to ask him for myself, what he thinks the colour of the sky is?

Very clever! But I already know the results of such a survey!

 

Tell you what, if any one of you can convince me that there is really no reason for me to believe that the men are under no pressure if they had an anonymous survey --- and if you can prove unfounded the reservations that I have raised in so many posts on this thread, about a poll of such a nature, and convince me that the nature of pressures in the society do not affect how a person might vote in a poll --- I'll go ahead with a poll!I

 

So you don't believe humans are animals too! Just because we wear clothes and eat with spoons, and hide our emotions!

A wise man once told me, "humans are very much like animals. What does an average animal do in its life --- eat, sleep and have sex. What does an average man do --- eat, sleep and have sex."

By the way I didn't just say animals. I said 'mammals'. The animal kingdom is too wide. The mammals share several common biological and social features.

 

I really don't think so. This is why:

- I didn't say 95% of men are 'gay'. I said 95% of men have a sexual need for other men. I'm not supporting (or opposing) a "gay" lifestyle here.

- Heterosexuality, in practise (in popular and scholarly circles) is often described as an exclusive sexual desire for females. If 95% of males have a sexual need for men, then it shows that they are not heterosexuals.

- I think before you ask me that question, you should ask, "what proportion of all sexual couplings in mammals are opposite-sex? That would be more relevant --- because that is what is expected from humans on the pretext of nature.

And as for same-sex couplings --- the same-sex couplings far outnumber the opposite sex couplings which, frankly in most cases is non-existent. The same-sex couplings in many cases are almost universal among males (e.g. bottleneck dolphins, Giraffes, and even Chimpanzees to name a few).

(I've already provided some excerpts from Bagemihl's book above!)

If you failed to notice, that remark about males jostling and wrestling because they are only practising for sex with females, is just a joke. It is meant to show how far-fetched heterosexual ideology can go in trying to dismiss same sex bonds amongst wild animals.

The detailed accounts of animal behaviour vis-a-vis their own sex excerpted from Bagemihl, which I have given a few posts back amply proves that it is a real sexual need.

Really, why don't we hold the forced heterosexualisation of society till then?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do we also stop breathing till a scientist tells us its o.k. to do so!

Or the sun stops shining till a scientist comes and allows it to do so!

Did the earth remain flat till Galileo (was it he or copernicus) prounced it round?

The truth is that we know that there is no opposite sex coupling amongst males and females amongst mammals. And that few males participate in the mating process. The scientists call this behaviour "reproductive suppression" which is a misleading term.

The point I wanted to raise in my 'sarcasm' was that scientists don't want to explore and acknowledge the low amount of opposite sex mating in the wild because they don't want to disturb the 'heterosexual' ideology.

They don't want to study the incidence of heterosexuality in the wild for the same reasons that they don't want to study the cause of heterosexuality --- always taking it for granted --- although this is against the essence of science.

Although, you're right, but you have to look at this anecdotal evidence together with other more scientific and verifiable evidences. It gels perfectly with them.

It is a report of something that is widespread in the Afghan society. It intrigues the western society, especially gays, so much that they can't help but to go and investigate/ understand for themselves.

Surely, the reporter is not talking about an one off incident and there are several other such reports.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is so true about some people's unfounded opinions, even if it is from the scientists.....only goes to prove how the scientists are hand in hand in spreading lies.

I'll blast these lies later though. There is a lot to be blasted!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Since, you've responded it so well Giambattista, I don't need to respond! May I formally ask you to take care of all such 'opinionated' posts, so that I can continue to answer the other ones where I'm more needed!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It plays a very important role in developing social weapons that keep men hating their same sex desires. It's part of the social masculinity mechanism to make men hate their same sex desires. As I've enumerated before:

femininity is artificially made = extremely lowly, denigrated male, dishonour for men

also, femininity is made = outcasts from male society

In medieval/ traditional societies:
receptive anal sex with males is artificially made = femininity

so it keeps receptive anal sex a denigrated, feminine thing for men and thus out of bounds for them.

The modern/ heterosexual society uses the same principle to extend it to any male-male sex:
Any kind of male-to-male sexual desire is artificially propagated as being = a desire for receptive anal intercourse.

It comes in very handy when you want to make some one feel feminine, denigrated and ashamed of having expressed an interest in another man!

Peace!

 

The problem with your position is that it requires an extraordinary amount of assumptions to be made in order to have any weight.

1. It doesn't matter to me whether you are gay or not.
2. Just because *I* don't like gay male sex, doesn't mean I would think anything different of a gay person.
3. And no, heterosexuality does not "deaden" the nerves, hence why I wouldn't like it! I mean it hurts like hell when I have a big turd!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

4. I have no attraction toward other males, and I don't care if a man seems "feminine" or not (I probably wouldn't even notice).
5. Once again, just because *I* do not have gay male sex, does not mean I am denigrating or have denigrated gays.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I still find it laughable how you continue to try and tell people over the internet how they really feel. You have never even met me, you don't even know the sound of my voice or what kind of person I am. How can you possibly tell me how I feel? Just because I am a male? And all males are alike? Too many assumptions, sir.

 

You should look at the original concept of wrestling. Look at the ancient Greek or modern Turkish wrestling. On the discovery channel, on a programme on world sports featuring Turkish wrestling, the American woman exclaimed, "A self respecting American man will never do such a thing!" when the macho burly man pushed his hands inside the pants of another burly man in order to get a grip on him!

There is still so much subtle male-eroticism in any phsycial sports that involves men touching and jostling each other. Of course they now put women into such spaces and it is enough to make this subtle eroticism evaporate quickly. Such is the power of the heterosexual pressures.

Gay people have tried to interpret this male eroticism in the athlete circle in their own way --- but like the heteroseuxals they have a skewed view of things and are often off the mark!

 

Is there a button here that says "yuck"! I guess not.

Although I must say I'd feel much the same way for the smell or taste of anus, and to a lesser extent to penis! I guess penis is less unclean than vagina and anus!

How can you lick and taste vagina, and still claim to be a man!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Leaving other things aside, I'll just answer your last question.

After having worked with more than 50000 men for a decade, I know enough about what pressures men face, how they react to those pressures, and there are ver clear and repeated patterns. Is that a good enough answer!