Discussion in 'Human Science' started by spuriousmonkey, Jan 31, 2006.
Hunter? What is that? A club? A stick?
Unsure. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Wouldnt this gay bashing invalidate your whole claim, or at the very least render you a hypocrite?
why does that upset you if 95% of men have a sexual need for other men?
it seems that you are disproveing your own theory.
b. how is what I said gay bashing?
Well, let's just forget about other arguments. Let me ask this: what makes you so sure that I'm not amongst 5% of men.
And even if I'm not, why do you want to know, I never said I wanted to know about you. Are you sexually interested in me?
If you are, let me warn you that we are not here for finding sexual partners. And I have no sexual interest in you whatsoever. So let that put an end to your asking me about my 'sexual orientation".
We are here to discuss broad matters. Not what each discusser does in bed?
Is there a fuckin poll? I think the poll has long been fuckin disqualified!
I mean I have never claimed that I don't like women for sex!
Ok, I'll stop calling you gay. Sorry. Normally when someone likes people of the same sex they're gay though. At least I've always thought so...
of course not
but it does shed light on your hypothesis that 95% of men prefer men sexualy
i say i don't, everybody says they don't but you don't believe it. why?
if you can be part of the 5% why can't the rest of us be part of it too?
the only reason i can think of is if we all are part of the 5% then that means 95% are part of the 5% which means your theory crashes and burns
So here's what I can't figure out. If Buddha is not gay, and likes women "for sex", why does he want 95% of men to be sexually attracted to him (I figure that's what this is about)? Is it because 95% of women find him repulsive? Or does he only think he's not gay but finds 95% of men sexually attractive and figures the rest of us must too? Or maybe he is male in outward appearance but has no penis and the only way he can get sexual satisfaction is by sexually substituting other men for his own lack of equipment, thus unintentionally forming an attraction toward them? Or was he unsuccessfully gender reassigned as a child? Or does he figure that if 95% of men are sexually attracted to other men then he has that much better chance of success with the women that find him repulsive? Any other theories out there?
his wife is a shoe
another possibility is
the outer masculine inner feminine social heterosexual is nothing more than the outer feminine socialy inner masculine gender
which by buddhas definition implies homosexuality
do you understand now?
if you do you understand more than i do
At least she has a sole then. I bet she makes Buddha feel like a heel, the way he runs her around all the time. She's gonna give him a tounge lashing, then she'll have the upper hand. They probably need to be more in-step with each other though. Toe to toe so to speak. She's probably pretty straight-laced. That may have someting to do with his obsession.
buddha has it hard alright
quote from a very good book on this subject:
“Homosexual Behavior Among Males: A Cross-cultural and Cross-Species Investigation”
Wainwright Churchill 1967
“Men who view the sexual drive as inherently evil and dangerous are likely to look upon the objects of their desire with both contempt and fear”
We have 16% homosexual need now. Still not close to 95%.
And here is where Buddha1 shows the full potential of spin.
Men weren’t forced into marriage, idiot!
Marriage suited the full integration of all men into the social fabric. This was accomplished by taking away female sexual power and forcing a monogamous; religiously/morally/culturally driven, behavior.
This one male, one female dogma, accomplished the participation of all males in the group, and turned them from dangerous challengers of the status quo, to full participants.
The system had to make all males investors in it, and therefore benefactors and defenders of its stability.
To exclude males from reproduction, as often happens in the wild, would mean bands of excluded males roaming the peripheries trying to usurp the dominant male's power.(Instability)
As happens with many species.
This natural male role of 'challenger to authority', which serves natural selection, is detrimental to stability.
The male had to be placated and kept happy by taking away female choice and forcing upon her a male she might not want.
This, in turn, resulted in male feminization.
Marriage suited the weak, inferior males, more than it did women or dominant males.
It was a way of integrating them all into the system.
Marriage didn’t force men to reproduce, you dim-witted moron!
It gave access to reproduction to males that were excluded, due to their genetic inferiority, and forced into subordinate, effeminate roles.
This would explain homosexual behavior in the wild, where inferior males, lacking the potential to attract females are forced to practice sexual intercourse with their own sex, as the only alternative.
Homosexual activity could also be practiced by juvenile males who gain experience in this way, when females are not available or accepting of their inferior adolescent advances.
It would also explain you, and those like you.
We see this behavior in human grouping, as well,, where any environment short on females makes some males, driven by libido, to seek satisfaction in whatever hole they can find.
This doesn’t denote attraction, but desperation and frustration.
A small percentage of males, under natural circumstances and when females possess their full sexual power of choice, get to procreate because those are the ones that the females decide are worth it.(They find attractive)
The rest don’t decide but are forced into the non-reproductive status of omega males.
They then take on the attributes of females, as their testosterone levels drop, and become more female like. Like you.
It is well documented that subordinate males, in wolves, experience a drop in testosterone, which returns to normal levels when and if they achieve dominance.
This lowering of testosterone explains their more female predisposition of tolerance and acceptance and submission.
This drop in testosterone levels is necessary if these males are to be included within the group.
In species where no such drop occurs, lions, the males are forced to leave the group and wander on the peripheries of the pride’s territory waiting for an opportunity to seize power and control over the females.
Here we see how females are considered a resource and fought over by competing males and how they accept whatever male authority happens to attain power with little resistance.
It is in their procreative interest to submit.
The rise of homosexuality in recent times can be explained due to these factors:
-Feminine emancipation- which returned sexual power to women and started excluding vast numbers of males from the procreative game. This return to more primordial procreative strategies, has caused the deterioration of the family institution.
- The monopolizing of alpha-male positions by institutions, which force all males into subordinate, effeminate positions. When all males are forced to behave as females, or be quarantined (jailed) or expelled (killed, permanently incarcerated, socially isolated) then the differences between the genders become less obvious and les relevant - and the levelling of mankind continues.
This, in turn, offers the environmental condition where people like Lord ButterFly can come about and flourish.
They not only needed to raise populations, so as to take advantage of greater and greater resources, which necessitated the inclusion of as many males into the group as possible, but, like every system, it needed to stabilize itself by harmonizing its parts.
This necessitated the subjugation of female reproductive power further – what is called Paternalistic systems – and it necessitated the restriction to masculine natural power (physical force, intellectual force, dominance, violence).
That’s how our species is evolving into a more feminine one.
Even women, to a lesser degree, are forced to become more prissy, delicate and ‘feminine’.
Bonds between men were always essential.
Sexual bonds are the forced alternative for most men that have no access to female sexual bonding.
For a small percentage, and due to a genetic mutation, this sexual need is not a forced alternative but part of their sexual deformity; a deformity with no genetic fitness, since it cannot reproduce on its own and is forced to parasitically reproduce. Like the Lancet Fluk
Homosexuality, under the current environmental circumstances, flourishes and attempts to become reproductive through parasitical strategies.
It lacks genetic fitness (It cannot reproduce on its own) so it relies on infecting other populations.
The problem with parasitical procreative strategies is that if access to external populations is denied or none are available it dies out, lacking any reproductive ability due to its nature.
“Somewhere in between came religion”?!!!!!.
Are you for real? :bugeye:
Religion has been with man since the beginning, in one form or another.
“Religion wanted to rule the word”?! What a beautiful example of your demented, simplistic thinking.
So ambiguous and broad a statement, hinting at hidden forces and conspiracies, to become almost...mystical.
Is your mind an example of a ‘real male’ mind?
A bit too feminine in its simplicity and inability to analyze in depth.
Yes because male behaviour is so calm and tolerant and peaceful in the wild.
Men are forced into violence they have no innate appetite for it.
Now I know you’re all Homo.
You want to replace females. This is why your entire focus is in the male homosexual behaviour and you make little reference to lesbians.
They don’t fit into your purposes and so you don’t care or cannot integrate them into your hypothesis.
It’s too bad that society and religion forces chimpanzee,
elephant, lion, dolphin (one of your favourite), ant, walrus males to be aggressive.
I didn't know they had religion.
We should all be more peaceful and kind…like….like women….or effeminate men, who lacking the ability to compete, try to use more feminine means to become viable and important to the group.
This dude’s particular psychosis, if taken seriously, can lead to frustration and, perhaps, blindness.
Stupidity has a way of turning from entertaining to frustrating, especially if one considers that this guy votes and co-exists with us.
It is another result of human intervention where weakness is protected and allowed to propagate, resulting in a general decline in potential.
He, extrapolates, from his own sense of exclusion and “persecution”, and sense of isolation and shame, a general thesis, and then seeks out information to spin in the way that will suit his wanted conclusion.
For him nothing short of all men being gay – or in his wordspeak ‘straight’, in a real-world example of how Orwellian double-speak works – will suffice. Because only in such a world could he feel comfortable and ‘normal’ and …wanted.
He’s taken the natural mechanism of reproduction and, because he didn’t like the competition and cruelty it entailed (the rules), he took its victims (mostly male because females are more important in the reproductive game), the majority of males that are excluded by force from the procreative game, and offered them, as he did to himself, an alternative release for their sexual energies and a reacquisition of their masculine self-esteem.
He hates women because they decide, as is their natural role to, who is worthy of their attentions and who not.
He hates heterosexuality, because it excludes him and prevents him from finding Love and a place in the world dominated by sexuality.
Yawn!!! the girl with hairy arms is becoming too boring!
It seems buddha1 is wrong to assume 95% of men have a sexual need for men. A simple poll already shows that the trend is rather opposite. Only a minority seems to have a sexual need for men.
Separate names with a comma.