95% of men have a sexual need for other men

How can you derive all this from this:
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

I think you have strange ideas on homosexuality and haven't accepted yet that it is quite normal and accepted in the more civilized societies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

EVIDENCES FROM THE HUMAN WORLD
O.K., now its time to move on to humans.

I'm dividing my evidences of same-sex needs from the human world into two parts:

- Human knowledge, science and philosophy

- Human societies --- historical, traditional and modern

AN IMPORTANT THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE EVIDENCES FROM THE HUMAN SOCIETIES WILL OFTEN BE INDIRECT.

Besides humans societies (at least those in power) made a lot of efforts to destroy, hide and distort evidences of same-sex needs from the society. So we will sometimes have to glean the evidences of such needs from indirect clues about it --- especially in modern heterosexual societies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you want I can give evidences for everything that I have said here. I have only said this after a great deal of study.

But I doubt that you'll dare to do that.....you'll just sneak out at the slightest pretext.

Before you can claim that 'homosexuality' is accepted you have to first answer the points I have raised against the definition of homosexuality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all. All homosexual activity and attraction is included.

 

HAHAHA...

you crack me up. Your research consists of watching hollywood movies? Have you ever seen a normal heterosexual act in a hollywood movie???? It's hollywood for fucks sake.

 

You make the mistake that you mistake your personal ideas on homosexuality (for instance your desire to be anally penetrated) for the scientific definition for homosexuality or societies ideas on homosexuality. I said it many times already and you never refuted it. You have the strange ideas on homosexuality here. You are the problem. Not society.

 

Homosexuality is a definition of sexual attraction, not of gender identity. I really don't see where the question on importance comes from. Another issue that seems to come from your head instead of reality.

 

You have posted a lot of posts expressing your disagreement with me, most of them are more of personal insults than saying anything worthwhile. So I'll ignore them.....I will stick to the sweeping dismissal of my points that you've attempted.

I'll continue from my post earlier:

So you don't agree that 'homosexuality' is automatically considered a minority trait by the heterosexual society, or the capacity to like another man sexually is limited to a minority group?

You want a proof of that......the fact that so many people are resisting an assertion that 95% of men have a sexual need for men is proof enough.

In oriental societies however, it is considered normal for a man to want to have sex with another man, as is shown by the report on Afghanistan. Sometimes, it's a matter of shame, but its normal --- just like say masturbation --- shameful if caught, but still normal.

Or that you don't think the western society considers sex between men to be an anamoly or a deviance at the most? You only have to look at all the studeis conducted to try to find out the 'cause' of homosexuality, and when nothing results then forcefully selling half-baked theories. We have already talked about it in the thread "homosexuality and anterior hypothalamus".

Or that you don't believe that 'homosexuality' is considered an unmanly and in fact a feminine thing? You discount western movies? Why, are'nt they part of the western society, and reflects its social mores and values --- and the ideals the society wants to promote?

There was a programme on FTV that showed men, often scantily dressed. The programme ran a caption saying their shows were enjoyed by women and some men --- why was there a need to qualify the word men by 'some'. Why can't a man with a straight identity looking at a beautiful man. And why does this fact that 'most' men do not find men attractive need to be asserted on a T.V. show? The media is involved in it knee deep.

What about science. All the studies conducted so far, seek to establish that 'gay' men are like 'women'. Either their brains are like women, or their response to noise is like women's, their creativity is like women's......there is no end to it! On what basis do you say that it is not considered intricately feminine? How can you adopt the same criteria for a masculine gendered man --- or lets say explain "Alexander the great" with a theory or an identity like that?

And don't you believe that homosexuality is basically about receptive anal intercourse? You have yourself sought to 'insult' me by saying that I like 'receptive anal intercourse'. That, when I don't even consider myself homosexual. And you're a biologist? Doesn't that prove my point already. That the word homosexuality is strongly related to receptive anal intercourse.

In that case, using it for any other sexual attraction for men --- that doesn't include 'anal intercourse' is technically wrong!

 

Yes that is what I'm saying. How can a man's basic social identity be determined by sexuality rather than gender?

You're quite thick head I must say. Have difficulty grasping things! How did you ever get to be a biologist?

How can the 'outer -sex' of the person one likes determine the social identity of the individual (i.e. the concept of sexual identity), instead of what a person is (i.e. his gender identity).

Gender identity should decide what a person is, not sexual identity!

 

And you've not answered the hordes of other objections that I have raised about the concept and definition of homosexuality.

I encountered those objections while working with men on the issues of gender and sexuality. These are some of the gaps that I have talked about!

 

EVIDENCES FROM THE HUMAN WORLD
O.K., now its time to move on to humans.

I'm dividing my evidences of universal same-sex needs from the human world into two parts:

- Human knowledge, science and philosophy

- Human societies --- historical, traditional and modern

AN IMPORTANT THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE EVIDENCES FROM THE HUMAN SOCIETIES WILL OFTEN BE INDIRECT.

Besides humans societies (at least those in power) made a lot of efforts to destroy, hide and distort evidences of same-sex needs from the society. So we will sometimes have to glean the evidences of such needs from indirect clues about it --- especially in modern heterosexual societies.

 

hi all
i am back and i want cock

 

You know what's funny.

If Buddha1's posts were written down on papyrus 2500 years ago, and just recently unearthed, we would be praising him as one of the great philosophers.

Makes ya think about the cranks who lived back then

 

Evidence From Human Science And Philosophy

FREUD

Freud, the father of psychology believed that ALL HUMANS ARE BORN BISEXUAL.

That goes pretty well with what I'm saying about all men having a sexual need for men.

Of course, Freud's theory had several flaws.......he was not particularly fond of 'homosexuality' (sic) and believed it to arise from our feminine self --- but then we have to remember that Freud came from a society which strongly believed that "opposites attract".

And even though the modern science (including psychology) has dismissed the born bisexual theory, obviously because it doesn't fit into the heterosexual ideology, the scientific institution has had no problem with the idea that same-sex desires flow from the feminine in men. Because this part of his theory fits in perfectly with the heterosexual agenda.

Of course, Freud must have seen something in his times that inspite of his hatred of 'homosexuality' (sic) he acknowledged that all men have the potentiality to like other men, but that their environment 'helps' them to become heteorsexual. Remember, that Freud lived in a time when the west was not heterosexualised --- not to the degree we know today, and there are several accounts which testify that like most traditional societies in the world (like contemporary Afghanistan e.g.) same-sex bonds were universal amongst men.

Because there have an entire line of thinkers who believe in the freudian theory that men are born bisexual --- and they exist even today.

Some excerpts about Freud's theory from the net:
1. Excerpt I: Innate Bisexuality

Innate bisexuality (or predisposition to bisexuality) is a term introduced by Sigmund Freud (based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess), that expounds all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development become monosexual while the bisexuality remains in a latent state.
(source: wikipedia)

2. Excerpt II: Innate Bisexuality

The source further states that:

.....Many modern uses of the term innate bisexuality are more indicative of Alfred Kinsey's research than Freud's. In this sense, it is a suggestion that most or all human beings are functionally bisexual to some degree, but may not express that bisexuality as behavior.

3. Excerpt III

"Freud thought we were all born bisexual, and may develop a preference later in life. Further studies do not support this, but most people have had at least some level of feeling for both genders at some point in their lives."
(source: Bisexuality, some questions answered )

 

Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment.

I'll leave the last remark as one being ignorant or biased!

 

Coming up: Michael Foucault and Alfred Kinsey.

 

meanwhile I found this interesting piece of evidence that proves my point without any doubt. In 1960s the west was more or less what the tradtional oriental societies are still today.

EVIDENCE FROM THE MODERN WEST BEFORE ITS HETEROSEXUALISATION WAS COMPLETE

The series of well researched papers where this is excerpted from is appropriately named (link at the end):

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY AND RELATED SUICIDE PROBLEMS

Here are some excerpts from a paper presented by By Pierre J. Tremblay in Collaboration with Richard Ramsay Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary. at The 11th Annual Sociological Symposium: "Deconstructing Youth Suicide," San Diego State University - March, 2000

Male Homosexuality (sic): From Common to a Rarity

In 1960, I was 10-years-old and growing up in a working class environment where male homosexual activity was the rule, not the exception. Its predominant manifestation was "sex with equality," thus including mutual masturbation and oral sex, but not anal sex (Bagley, 1997, p. 183). The latter was not even thought about, except for eventually learning that passive anal sex was an activity engaged in by apparently degraded males who thought themselves to be like women, or were labeled as such because they were accepting the status of being anally penetrated. As for ourselves living in a world where effeminate males did not exist, our sexual activities with other males generally reflected our social relationships: most sex with one's best friend, and lesser sex with lesser friends. We also had girlfriends and knew what was to be done sexually with them as it was so well understood via having learned the word "fuck" and its clear meaning. This explains why even the thought of "fucking" one's best friend was precluded: the activity or related desires was in violation of our equality based male bonding friendships. Sexual activity was also only a small part of our daily activities, and it was not an everyday activity although, at times, it was enjoyed more than once a day.

(read the complete article here)

 

More excerpts from the above paper:

As a young adult, I ventured into learning more about male homosexuality and encountered the Kinsey et al. (1948) study which contained data not at odds with my experiences (Note 3), nor with the similar experiences of my youngest brother who grew up in the same neighborhood. Although he did not engage in homosexual activity, when asked what our neighborhood was like in the 1970s, he explained the male homo-sex situation as follows: "You know, Pierre, when the tent was set up and most boys came to have a sleep-out, well, I was the only one not having sex" (Bagley, 1997, p. 185). Without doubt Freud would have been happy to learn about this reality because it would have supported his belief that all individual were capable of acting in accordance to his postulated "bisexuality" norm for humans (a fact Freud recognized possibly because of his knowledge of the Ancient Greek males), and especially because he had also situated homosexuality as the first manifestation of a person's sexual desires that may or may not be acted upon (de Kuyper, 1993).

 

And I think the next excerpt point clearly states all my points. I don't think I need any other evidence now to prove my case:

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FROM HUMANS: MODERN PRE-HETEROSEXUALISATION WEST AND A COMPARISON WITH POST HETEROSEXUALISATION WEST
When I ventured in gay communities in 1978, a major new experience involved the learning about so-called "gay-identified" males, many still being teenagers, and they often were gender nonconformable. As a rule, they had also grown up thinking themselves to be the only ones with homo-sex desires in their neighborhoods, their school, or even in their town or city. Their feelings of isolation had been extreme, resulting in their belief that male homosexuality was exceptionally rare, and many had grown up perceiving themselves to be "freaks." In recent books and papers dealing with gay youth, and on related internet pages, these stories are repeated, and similar life situations were highlighted in the Australian 'Here for Life' Youth Sexuality Project Final Report.

The process of realising a same sex orientation, and either hiding this or being open, often results in:

damaged self esteem; distancing from family and peers; attempts to avoid disclosure; distortion of nearly all relationships; increasing sense of isolation; and, sense of inferiority and self loathing

This sense of isolation and negative reinforcement has been shown to increase the incidence of mental health issues in young people, resulting in emotional disorders, self harm and suicide. (Goldfram et al. 1999)

My own adolescent environment, however, precluded having such feelings because desires to have sex with other males, and engaging in such joyful activities, resulted only in knowing that I was part of a majority even if, as with masturbation, my sexual activities with other males were to be private acts (Note 4). It is also doubtful, given the information available from Ancient Greece, that adolescents boys of the period would have experienced self-hatred and isolation, with associated suicidal feelings, because they had love and sex desires for older males. If suicidal feeling existed, they would likely have been experienced by a male youth who was being ignored by all older males. Therefore, the reported exceptionally high rate of "suicide problems" for present-day males recognizing their same-gender sexual desires (males who often identify as gay or bisexual) may be a social construction intimately linked to another possible social construction: the increasing rarity of males reporting same-gender sexual desires and related sexual activity in the Western World. As Chauncey (1994) reports on the basis of the evidence:

...in important respects, the hetero-homosexual binarism, the sexual regime now hegemonic in American culture, is a stunningly recent creation.

 

MORE EVIDENCE FROM HUMANS

excerpts from the same paper:

To date, an interesting body of research work has reported that in the first half of 20th century male same-gender sexual activity was much more extensive than during the last third of the century (Nilsson, 1998; Chauncey, 1994, 1985; Dowsett, 1994; Carbery 1992, Brighton Ourstory Project, 1992; Humphreys, 1975; Kinsey et al., 1948). In fact, not all that long ago, about 40 percent of American males had been homosexually active at least at some point in their lives after the onset of adolescence (Kinsey et al,, 1948), but something happened which caused the elimination of the majority of homosexually active males from the world of male homosexuality. Nilsson (1998) supplied the likely explanation for this event occurring in Europe and in other countries with populations of European origins.

Marshall (1981), Newton (1993), and Chauncey (1994) argue that there has been a slow [homosexuality] redefinition process in the western world in this century, from a definition based on 'gender' - a homosexual man desires men because he is like a woman - toward a universal 'sexual' definition: a homosexual man, however "feminine" or "masculine" he is, is homosexual because he desires men... It is interesting that this change, and the concomittant separation of men who were "so" from "real men," occurred at the same time as, and was indeed influenced by, a growing openness of male homosexual life toward and visibility from society.

The "real men" were generally from the working class (the largest segment of population at the time) and some males from this group are described by Minton (1995). "[The two males in a study sample] represented a growing number of working-class young men who migrated to urban centers in the 1920s and 1930s, seeking the "sex trade" as a means of income. As long as their masculinity was not compromised, they had no qualms about engaging in sex with other men." Many of these men, however, did not receive money for their services, although tokens of appreciation were common, and others participated in "trade" for no other reason than the enjoyment Nilsson (1998) and others reported to be the rule for all these "real men." Basically, these men (often teenagers) were well aware that these same-gender sexual activities were infinitely more enjoyable than masturbation, the most common male sexual activity (Munsey, 1997). At a very young age, I had also recognized this fact and, in the neighborhood where I grew up, sanity and altruism also ruled. Most males innately knew (or quickly learned via biofeedback) that masturbation was a selfish act: keeping for yourself what could be shared, and being altruistic was much more enjoyable than being selfish and of questionable intelligence.