95% of men have a sexual need for other men

Frankly, I hadn't even read this comment earlier. I read a post, and if the first few lines suggest that the poster is going to go blah, blah, blah about his personal opinions, I just leave it and don't read any more. I have so many important posts to read and answer!

I read and answer rubbish posts only when they are small!>chuckle<

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, because you decided to ignore my other points. That is exactly what I'm talking about, you have already made the conclusions that all men are gay or have gay tendencies. So whenever a man denies such a claim, you automatically conclude that they are in denial and are just putting on a "front" because that's how society raised us. I have never once insulted a gay person, and I have never once thought about having gay sex, so does that make me unique? And why would I put up a "front" over the internet? Like I said, you don't know me, and you never will, what am I scared of? You might as well not even exist to me, why would I care what you think about me?

Those are the points I'm trying to get across, I have no intention of arguing your "scientific" studies, however unscientific they really are.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, here: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FROM THE ANIMAL KINGDOM (SEA CREATURES)

I disagree!

Do you know of any scientific stream that is yet capable of looking behind men's masks?

Why should people wait till the time that science finds the time to rid itself of its biases and motivations to seek to uncover the issues of men?

We must accept the limitations of science and be open to other sources --- at least in a secondary capacity, to let us see the complete picture. I'll leave it to people to believe it or not though!

I'll take up the rest later!

 

I think this Buddha0 was grownup among GAY Monks and must have never seen a woman until he ran away from his tibetian cult.

 

And to think, all that time, all these monks THOUGHT they were attracted to each other, but they were secretly longing after that woman-creature they'd never seen before!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is not only proof of evolution, but proof that opposites attract.

I'm crying, because this truth is so very beautiful.

 

But they're tears of JOY!

 

His definitions are just a little difficult to comprehend, I suppose.

50%, I would be inclined to believe.

95% is definitely debatable.

 

Let's just say, I doubt that figure.

I sincerely believe Buddha's country and culture makes a difference, as well, so it may be something more noticeable to him, especially as a counselor. But he has gone on and on about that already (the difference between east and west).

 

What does Buddha1 think about culture making sexual-preference lean more in one direction than another???

 

That's why we are debating it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Culture cannot create what nature does not provide for!

 

If you must be fucked it is much more honorable to be fucked by a man rather than be fucked by a woman!

 

Then debate it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I haven't yet said anything beyond the statement that 95% have a sexual need for men. I haven't yet said how much (at least not in this thread!).

Let's accept this first and then we can debate further as it comes.

It varies from person to person --- from exclusive attraction to a lesser attraction.

The intensity of sexual attraction does not seem to be uniform. I think it is something like the following:

Masculine gendred males: in the case of masculine men --- who form the crux of the 'straight' male population (if heterosexual group only comprised of transvestites and transexuals, would you call that straight? --- therefore straight is basically about masculinity rather than heterosexuality; heterosexuality has just been psychologically tied with masculinity) --- same sex and same gender (remember sex and gender are two different concepts) needs are their basic sexual drive.

Feminine gendered males: The feminine gendered males are the link between men and women. half of them are more inclined sexually towards women (some exclusively) and half towards men (some exclusively). Because of social manipulation of human sexuality and gender, the feminine group is broken into three parts.

- The 'meterosexual' population becomes part of the straight group because of their heterosexuality.

- Those inclined towards men become homosexuals.

- The extremely feminine gendered males who are inclined more towards women become 'transexuals'.
I would appreciate a link to a source for that statement, if you have one.

The above is my observation and at least yet difficult to prove beyond doubt. But if you use this criteria to observe people you'll find it applies to most males.

We have already discussed that you don't need male-female coupling (i.e. emotinonal bonds) to procreate. The mammal male does not invest in parenting. The birds are decidedly heterosexuals. But we are not birds. I am more interested in finding out mammal behaviour.

The problem is the scientist will not say anything that goes against the heterosexual ideology. Science is heavily biased in favour of heterosexuality. Not only biased it is motivated, and scientists deliberately distort facts and figures to bring out 'results' to add to the heterosexual ideology. We have already seen that.

Therefore it will be difficult to expect scientists to document the negligible presence of heterosexuality in the wild. In fact it will not even come to their notice. No doubt it took science 200 years to accept that same-sex bonds do take place in such abundance. If science was really truthful, honest and non-manipulative it would not have known right away --- it is really so clearly visible, the indigenous people knew it all along.

The fact that there is hardly any documentation of emotional bonding between males and females amongst mammals will have to be seen as a proof that it doesn't exist.

Of course I've already provided some evidence that same-sex couplings amongst mammals are abundant. I'll provide more evidences.

Besides, I'm an avid watcher of discovery and N Geographic channels. And I've closely watched animal behaviour from what they show us. I have not seen a single instance of male-female sexual bonding (apart from sex which is purely for procreation --- nothing less, nothing more!). If there are male-female couplings, where are they? Why aren't they visible in the wild life shoots? Why isn't it documented?

 

Why should we believe in every interpretation of things that scientists give us. It is all too easy to believe that most males don't mate because they are not allowed to......because otherwise Dariwinism, which is the base of scientific validation of heterosexuality is negated.

Let me put the following excerpts from the site " Future Histories of Nonreproductive Sex and Technology" to make my point:

Why don't animals not reproduce? Biologists have coined the term "reproductive suppression" to refer to various forms of non-breeding, implying that all animals would breed if they could. but are somehow "prevented" from doing so. However the underlying mechanisms involved in nonbreeding are far more complex than this term implies. Numerous social, physicological, environmental, and individual factors are implicated, often interating in ways that are still poorly understood. In some animals, procreation is indeed actively "suppressed" -- in other species, though, no coercion is involved.......in pied kingfishers......primates such as tamarins and marmosets, scientists describe individuals not as 'unwillingly' suppressed in their breeding efforts, but rather as 'choosing' to forgo procreation or exercising "self-restraint".

My further comments:

If you guys watch wild life programmes then next time just watch the mating behaviours of non-bird animals. Just see how many deers are fighting each other out for mating --- one or two, when hundreds would be just sitting there chewing on their grass!

On a programme on elephants they said that elephants copulate only a couple of times in their life --- that too when in their later adulthood --- I forgot the exact details but maybe something is available on the net.

You're right it is not so relevant --- it is more relevant to prove that a sizable proportion of males forego procreation as well --- further negating both Darwin and heterosexuality.

 

DEFINITION OF HETEROSEXUALITY

The thing with English language is that the same word can mean so many closely related but obviously different things, that it is easy to manipulate and do selective usage of these terms to distort the truth subtly but immensely.

E.g., when talking about numbers of homosexuals, people tend to define it as those who have 'exclusive' sex with men. So you have a number of 10%.

But when they talk about numbers of heterosexuals, suddenly, the definition includes anyone who has ever had sex with females, and no exclusivity is needed. So then you have a percentage of 90% of heterosexuals.

Yet again, when it is like exerting the social power of 'heterosexuality' or to marginalise same sex behaviour, then it is back to heterosexual is 'exclusive' sex between males and females as is evident from the examples on this thread on sci-forums:Calling all heterosexuals

Look at some of the ways people define heterosexuality here:

"How can someone define themselves heterosexual and still be attracted to the same sex?

Heterosexual by definition means "Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex." So this poll is technically invalid, if not, then people's definitions of their own sexuality are skewed."

This pretty much aptly sums up the common perception of 'heterosexuality', (but which conveninetly changes when talking about the percentage of heterosexuals).

It's also because of the social pressures --- that anyone who has (whether willingly or unwillingly), sex with women will call himself 'heterosexual' whether or not he has lots of sex with men.

While, it is only he who is exclusively into men, who will call himself 'gay'.

But science will be completely a useless institution if it further adds to the confusion by not defining what it really means by the terms it uses.

And to use a definition (whether it is heterosexuality or homosexuality) which is against the popular usage of the term is also creating deiberate confusion on the issue should be considered unethical for scientists.

 

Why should I believe what people tell me about their sexual preferences when in 100% of the cases, they tell me one thing and then do just the opposite? Why is it that people who are insecure about their sexual feelings for men always, always must come up and tell me that they have a no such sexual interest, and that only 'gays' have such interest?

I know why......it is because saying so reassures them about their loyalty to their chosen sexual identity --- 'heterosexuality', and then they feel more 'psychologically' heterosexual. It is also pivotal for their feeling a man.

And this is exactly why I think no one would care to tell us, even anonymously, that they have a sexual interest in other men --- like they say "it's better to let sleeping dogs lie". Why should they unnecessarily provoke their unwanted sexual feelings by taking off the lid and run the danger of these feelings running amok?

I have learned to see signs when someone is lying about their sexual preferences and when someone is not. It comes from experience.

But, tell me why, if you're so cool about it, does it matter to you what I think about your sexual preferences. I am not saying that you don't have a sexual need for girls? why are you so upset about it?

In any case, let me tell you that what individuals say about their own personal experiences hardly, especially about their own sexual feelings is hardly relevant here, especially if it is only to present stereotypes.

So let's end this discussion by saying that it doesn't really matter to me or to anyone else here, who you are sexually attracted to. And it doesn't help this discussion either way (for or against), either.

 

Then we are at a standstill, if my experience is worthless and you cannot prove your position outside of your experience, we are stuck.

Why are yours more valid than mine?

Im not the only one with experience that contradicts your position, saying that some things help your case and plucking a percentage out of your head is not the way to prove a point.

And you must understand that others have different experiences that contradict yours, calling them a laymen etc being condescending and acting like your experience is important when nobody elses is, doesnt help your case.

Yet you make the claims regardless and are struggling to prove them.

100% of mammals? Be careful what you claim, again i repeat it may be different where you are. Involuntary erections can have nothing to do with sexual desire towards a male, they may be thinking of a female, stimulated by touch even if repulsed by the person touching them, caused by stress and several other things, you're using a similar arguement to people who claim men cannot be raped as they require an erection and must be sexually interested, this is not the case.

I understand your concept but its very difficult to prove the number you quoted, finding gay references should be easy, but to remember the overall population of the planet, including other animals, and the number of animals that exhibit gay sexual behaviour, is the key to determining a correct percentage. In some societies there is little pressure over if you are gay or straight, it is widely accepted to be either and therefore hiding it, persuading people not to be that way inclined is not what i would think of as a substantial enough issue to surpress 95% of people.

I use the term bi quite a bit, i find the percentage of gay people is very low but the percentage of bi people is comparatively higher, however i have yet to see a high percentage of people being interested in the same sex.
Im also curious why you dont apply this to women, are they not influenced to be interested in only men in the same society?
I have yet to see you prove your point with all horses, you have proved for one horse that it prefered the males company, not that it was sexually interested, and i dont doubt there are more cases, even of some with sexual interest, i think an observation of wild horses would change this, in the wild male animals often also compete with each other.

I've now explained why men can get an erection without being aroused by the male, it can happen on a bus etc, and i dont recall ever having an erection standing in front of a man, that would alone prove 100% to be incorrect.

I have to disprove your claim? Im sorry you dont seem to understand how this process works, you dont make a claim and ask people to disprove it, you have to prove what you claim to be fact, which i think most people agree you havnt, otherwise people would go around claiming absolutely anything and asking you to prove them wrong, which i would think you couldnt do 99% of the time... prove my figure wrong?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I still encourage you to keep trying.

Im undecided on the issue to be honest, theres many a debate on genetics of sexual attraction and im currently unaware of the conclusions. I see reasons opposite sex desires could to be genetic, as it would make sense for procreation and without it perhaps creatures would die out, its an instinct, im not sure if some are genetic or not?

I can postulate, based on observations, and clearly determine they arnt mating, which leads more to the conclusions its about dominence, maybe its just fun? Possibilities im sure are endless. I would also like to point out you arnt a dog or any of these other animals either and yet still claim to know precise reasons to it, again i dont see why your ideas are more valid than mine or anyone elses. Even in the case of humans you cant claim to know the mind of every human, or indeed a high percentage of them.

If you mean in a wrestling sort of way that can again be about dominence, the strongest person wins and shows they are strongest, it happens in the wild, competing for the attentions of a female but being strongest etc. Though i dont doubt some humans do it for other reasons, as im sure some animals do, i realise there is more than one explanation for this, and to determine each individuals reasons for such an act isnt the easiest of things to do, like you say though, the humans admit they derive sexual pleasure out of it, doesnt mean everyone does, or indeed that the rule applies to almost everyone.

Sex is a sexual act, gratification, again i agree some people may feel that from these acts, but can you prove that most people do it for sexual reasons?
The only thing i actually dislike about your theory is that you seem to have the attitude of if somebody says they arnt interested in a guy they are lying/hiding having been socially conditioned, i find this impossible to prove, only the person responding will know their own mind, you can ask and people can respond truthfully and you may not believe them, equally they may lie, and you believe them.

 

Lemming3K, you're not listening.

Perhaps you lack debating skills, and that's why its frustrating to discuss with you. If you think what the society tells you is the truth, and what you've seen of the men is the reality, then please suit yourself. For those who want to know what I've found out, they are welcome to explore, criticise, debate, share their own experiences and reject or accept my conclusions accordingly.

The problem is that you're not sharing your EXPERIENCES. You're sharing your opinions and doing nothing but giving long accounts of the accepted western position on these things --- which are nothing new, and I know them just too well. You are blindly supporting the accepted view, and do not want to look beyond that. That is typical of the 'vested interest group'.

The thing is also that we have already had long discussions on the opinions you are giving --- and we are debating things at a much higher level now. I have already shown the basic flaws in the western accepted position. I DON'T want to enter into such long discussions over the same issues again. And tell you what, every new person who comes wants to do the same thing!

And last but not the least, I'm not going to rely my assertion on my own experiences. They are just there to share. The basic criteria for judging what I've been saying are things that can be verified --- either because they have been scientifically proven, or because they are common knowledge, or because they have been reported in media etc.

Of course all of these will be up for discussing their validity!

 

You clearly lack the ability to comprehend alternatives to your own conclusions, i've clearly stated im open to yours and encouraged you to provide more evidence, but have several other options also valid along with my experience, yet you dismiss them and claim superiority, without proof of your numbers. You provide the occasional anecdote and assume all others follow this same anecdotal evidence, and if it doesnt its hiding behind a mask. We make no progress as you dismiss anything which doesnt agree as being hidden, and im not the only one it seems, but your thinking along with alternatives are there for people to see, i see little wrong with my debate skills except that im wasting them on you.

I make my own conclusions based on all things presented, not merely accepting what im told by people who think they know best, you or otherwise. If you require to test my thought then give me more examples of what society tells us and we'll see if i agree with them.

This has been done by many people, and you dismiss all it seems.

The problem is that you're not sharing your EXPERIENCES. You're sharing your opinions and doing nothing but giving long accounts of the accepted western position on these things ---
Ever considered this so called western position might actually exist? It seems not. Im giving you alternatives, my own views and experiences, and what i know of people i've met and encountered, some are openly gay, or bi, some admit having liked men but not wishing to do anything, others dislike the idea of something going inside them, no matter what it is. Im asking you questions which repeatadly get ignored.

Again you know nothing about me or how i draw my conclusion yet insist im wrong and blindly following without even checking what you say, you know nothing of my interests, let alone if there are any. If you wish others to consider things you say, realise everyone is different and you cannot know what they are thinking, please drop the psychic act and the condescending attitude.

Your experiences arent to be ignored but other peoples contradict it, hence its value will decrease to the same level as other peoples, it seems the number of people with your experience is also outweighed. Either way simply provide this scientific proof that 95% require the sexual activity, if its been proven then how hard can this be?
The most obvious way for this would be finding out who has had the sexual activity and who hasnt, if they havnt they didnt require it and hence your position would be wrong.

This quote was directed at another but im curious -

This is what i mean about your attitude, you have already decided in 100% of cases people do the opposite, how do you know its 100%, have you checked up on everyone? You ask why you should believe what others say, you dont have to, its your choice, but to dismiss them as liars or hiding behind a mask if they dont agree with you is foolish, notice your opinion differs from others yet they mostly dont use this tactic on you.
I continue to find this interesting and read and listen, but as far as letting you know alternatives to your thinking it seems a waste of time for all of us.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!