Do you as a man have a sexual need for other men

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: Now that's sexist! Don't you know that only a woman knows what another woman needs? Why not get a car and music that has been created by a female. That would be your best bet on a chick-mobile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Top speed of 50 and an extra-large make-up mirror?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't forget the pink interior and the glove box holding shoes.

 

A pink Cadillac with silver rims

 

With the rear seats removed to make place for a mobile wardrobe.

 

Wait... I've seen "thugs" and "gangstas" around here like that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also playing bad music with the bass blocking all the shitty lyrics.

 

I was thinking of this:

http://www.pozarart.com/fineart/elvis.jpg

 

No no no, a chick magnet must simply contain the Chippendales or equivalent.

 

Men are sexually useless to me. We men are sperm donors, and the other men are competition. We compete for eggs. Men cannot have babies so they have no sexual function unless you are gay, and I'm straight.

 

By the way, I think a lot of men arent straight or gay, but bisexual. Bisexual men, you have a choice. Straight and gay men, we have no choice. I'd rather have sex with a monkey than with a dude, because it would feel just as gross, at least the monkey would not talk and act guyish. On the other hand, if a dude looked exactly like a female, felt exactly like a female, smelled like a female, thought like a female,, and somehow could have babies, I woulld be able to sleep with them, I might even be attracted to them, so it's not about the stigma, it's all about personality and appearance. The male body is ugly as hell, and that includes my own. The female body is divinely beautiful. Could any of us ever have sex with a male? I suppose if the technology were great enough, and males could use stem cells or whatever to look exactly like women, we straight guys wouldnt know the difference, but I'd still think they'd need to warn people that they were previously a dude, and they'd need to actually think like a female, and those two things are unlikely. Finally, male chicks can't have babies, so no matter how attractive they may be able to look due to tampering genetically or hormonally, they'd still not be a real woman until they can have babies and then they are a woman.

 

There are plenty of beautiful pre-op transexuals and post ops, who look better than women as they have the male testosterone to better define their form and they lack cellulite. And they do fool men all the time. No babies though, but be careful what you proposition in Brazil, if she's unusually beautiful she's most likely a he.

 

ugh..

Give me a -woman-, every time, all day, any day, please.

It goes against the nature of the male sex of our species to be homosexual.

 

Strange, since, in most other species, homosexuality is a natural occurrence. On what grounds do you think human differ from our non-human ancestors? Incidentally, just because something isn't universal doesn't mean it's not natural.

 

You are trying to prove something by starting with, 'in most other species'

Clearly, I said, "It goes against the nature of the male sex of our species...."

 

Yes, I caught that. I'm asking why you think our species is in any way special, given that we're descended from other species.... ?

 

I know it's a serious question... but... I just don't feel like answering such a question. I'm amazed you even ask it.

 

OK, but I do think the claim that homosexuality goes against human instincts does need justifying - otherwise, it just looks like unfounded prejudice.

 

I believe that a man is naturally inclined towards being the dominant sex in our species. We provide and protect. We are the fighters.

When two men are in a homosexual relationship and have anal sex, each man has to be submissive and 'receive' and be dominated by another man. The act of mounting and penetrating is an act of dominance in itself, in my opinion.

I believe this goes against the nature of a man.

Example -
Earlier, you referenced the animal kingdom. A good example would be Lions.
A Lion's mane tells a lot about that particular Lion. When two males fight, the winner will rip and tear the defeated Lion's mane. Therefore, a Lion with a big, full mane has won many battles and has not lost in some time. There have been studies that prove a lioness will choose a large or thick mane over a lion with hardly any. Can you picture a male lion allowing himself to choose to be dominated by another male lion and enjoy it? It's against his nature.

I believe this is the same case with man. However, we have the ability to conquer nature and actually decide, "I just want males".... whereas in the animal kingdom, homosexual encounters are just that, random encounters.... not a sexual orientation and lifestyle.

This is a polarizing subject

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This statement seems very clear. You believe homosexuality is contrary to Man's nature. However, you offer zero evidence in support of this contention. It would appear that just because you don't like the idea that it must be unnatural. That is clear cut, blatant prejudice, without an ounce of scientific thought in sight.

Homosexual behaviour is common amongst many animal and bird species. It is clearly common amongst humans (though not as common as Bhudda1 would have us believe). Why on Earth would you think the mechanism is different?