95% of men have a sexual need for other men

He ain't ignoring me. The guy is obssessed with me. I have made a deep impact on him.

Didn't you notice the poor guy's new signature?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really think we should go step by step on this.

If you don't believe that 95% or 100% men don't have a sexual need for other men, there is no use hypothesising with you on this.

Afterall, you are probably 'mocking' again, and I have more serious things to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So one thing is proved again.......and I've proved it again and again......

1. There is an intense pressure on men to be heterosexual.

2. Men lie about the true nature of their sexual needs because of these pressures.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ignoring 95, 100, or any other number, I agree with the first and the second point here.

Is there a third point?

 

I'm not. I'm still faintly amused by you.

Sorry, I'm just playing. The truth is I'm a very relaxed and open-minded person in most matters, sexuality included. I despise macho meat-heads.

You've (very directly) called me a 'faggot' at least twice, and insinuated that I'm in denial numerous times. I'm not obsessed with proving anything, just trying to explain that I don't really fit into the box you've constructed for me.

The truth is that I have neither the time nor the patience nor the inclination to engage in a full-on debate with you. The subject doesn't interest me that much but I'm following it, and questions do occasionally occur. I asked you about the psychological effects of all this repressed sexuality - why aren't we all depressed and suicidal? - a page or so back. So far you haven't answered (although maybe whilst I'm typing this you have - you sure do type a lot!).

I have no cause and what you see as trolling I see as having a sense of humour. Maybe if you lightened up just a bit people might be less hostile and more willing to engage you.

Are you happy? Do you smile much?

 

The Smiths are great, aren't they?

 

OK: like I said, I truly don't have much time for this - literally. I've got about another 15 minutes. Can we leave out what I do/don't believe and just cut to the chase on this one? I really don't have the time to debate it but I'm interested in your ideas on this. And no, I'm not mocking. Seriously, tell me what you think, as succinctly as you can.

 

Since you play a lot, we have no means to know the real you. Can we move ahead from YOU now!

You are not 100% of men. You are not even 95% of men. Why can't you look at the issue with a more open mind?

 

The trick is that the society trains people to suppress their sexual need for men and divert it towards women from a very age. The strategy is to kill same sex needs before they have a chance to develop and divert the male primary sexual energy of men towards women (which in most men is the secondary sexual drive)..

For many men it works just fine, and they forget about their same-sex needs. Many others do it partially, and they may be aware of their same sex needs in different degrees. While it does generate stress and innumerable and even serious 'side-effect' it does not make most men suicidal. After all the man is primarily engaged in securing social masulinity which keeps him occupied for a lifetime.

It is only in men who become strongly aware of their same-sex needs (mostly by being exposed to positive same-sex experience during an early age, before they could mutilate their same-sex needs) and have not been able to divert their sexual energy towards women in any significant way that things become a problem.

 

You are known by the company you keep. If you gang up with the likes of Ophiolite and Spuriousmonkey who have been acting as trolls for a long time now.......I'm likely to misunderstand. But I hope things stand corrected now.

I don't mind a good humour, and I really don't mind answering a query made in earnest.

But please also understand that mockery and ridicule is one way that the larger society deals with any obstinate effort to bring this issue into the mainstream.

 

SUMMARY OF THE THREAD SO FAR​

There was some more discussion on the topic, and a lot of efforts to sabotage the discussion, which only serves to strengthen my allegations against the vested interest group......there have been no evidences to the contrary and so the conclusion of the discussion still stands as earlier:


So far, in order to understand that almost 100% of men have a sexual need for other men, we have looked at innumerable evidences from:

- the wild life, especially mammals, and since humans are also mammals their basic instincts and needs are more likely than not to be the same.

- Human science and philosophy

- Social science studies of male sexuality in the pre heterosexualisation days. (pre 1960s) that closely match the traditional societies of the orient that exist even today.

We found that:

- 90% to 100% of mammalian males of any specirs have sexual relations with other males, that includes monogamous, life long and committed bonds. It is also clear that the sexual relations with females are extremely short, often limited to the act of sexual intercourse. There are extremely few evidences of male-female bonding , whether social or sexual amongst the mammals.

- In most mammals (we discussed the example of horses in which only 5% seemed to mate with females regularly) only a small number of male mammals have regular sex for reproduction with the females. While that doesn't rule out their having sex with males as well, most males live in male only groups and if they ever have sex with females it is only once or twice in their life time. Many don't have sex with females in their entire life.

- We took the example of a non-heterosexualised contemporary country, i.e. Afghanistan and saw that sex between males was extremely common -- almost universal amongst men, who nevertheless tried to masqurade it with several excuses.

- We also took several examples from the modern but pre-heterosexualisation west, and saw how common and universal sex between men was, and it was a society where sex with women was not much of a problem.

- We also read the views of several important scientists, anthropologists and philosophers who have worked on male sexuality who vouched that the concept of sexual orientation (including heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality) is invalid, and that most men have sexual feelings for other men.

- We also saw excerpts from a book by an anthropologist who very clearly stated that males in mammals including humans are quite open to sexual eroticism from other males.

In addition to the above we also found the following:

1. There is an intense pressure on men to be heterosexual.

2. Men lie about the true nature of their sexual needs because of these pressures.

The overwhelming conclusion from the above discussion is that sexual need for another man is an integral part of male sexuality amongst mammals, including humans. And that almost 100% of human males have a sexual need for other men.

 

The third point is in the summary. That 95% of men have a sexual need for other men. It means a staggering majority to say the least.

If you don't agree, you should be able to explain the strong evidences that I have gathered here.

 

OK. Interesting. I'll consider that and, in the meantime, another quick question if you don't mind (won't have time for the reply, I'll read it later): what do you think is behind this same-sex need? What's the driving force? Not reproduction, clearly, so what replaces it? Sorry if I'm asking you to repeat some of your earlier ideas but I came late to this. ok, bye for now..

 

Yes I have dealt with it. But it would be my pleasure to repeat it here.

From the views of several scientists and from several scientific evidences, it seems that sex between males (and between females) serves the purpose of social bonding.

In fact it seems from scientific evidencrs that sex amongst living organisms originally served the purpose of social bonding between members of the same-sex.

One important clue for this is that even before sexual dimorphism took place and reproduction became sexual, sex was present --- amongst members of the same gender that is.

In most higher mammals, sexual dimorphism took place and sex was used as a vehicle for reproduction. But without negating the original purpose of sex --- which was to serve as a means of social bonding. There may be several other purposes of (same)sex that we don't have a means to know. Afterall, as a species we have been running away from it for far too long. We have lost any of the usefulness it had for us. (My theory is that, it is the prime reason why human being behaves in such anti-nature ways).

Sex between opposites is certainly limited to reproduction in the nature, and it is certainly not for social bonding --- except from species like birds (even there it is only partial). Therefore it does not need to be permanent or primary. All the prevailing evidences suggest that males and females (except 5% to quote Bruce Bagemihl the scientist) have sex only for the duration that is needed to pass on the sperms for reproduction. There is no emotional bonding, no long term commitment and often no participation of the male in child rearing.

On the other hand male bonds are extremely common amongst animals, especially mammals. Sexuality is the main glue that keeps these bonds together. Such bonds are often long term, even life-long which only a primary and permanent sexual drive can ensure.

 

wikipedia.

The average score of homosexuality among the population seems to hover around 5%. Interestingly this number is lower in puritan societies (US/US countryside), but increases when more impersonal survey methods are used. But still around 5% in that case.

Our own sciforums survey shows that probably most people have been very frank with admitting to their homosexuality because we have a percentage much larger than 5%.

9 people have had sexual need for a man, 49 have not. That is 15%. That shows how openminded this community is. 15% is no way near 95%.

Hence the argument that 95% of men have a sexual need for men is now declared to be refuted based on gross inaccuracy of the percentage.

Do men have sexual need for other men. yes, some do. Apparently most men do not.

 

Let's have a deal!

I'll accept everything you are saying, and close this thread.......I'll even contemplate moving to the west.......just answer the following satisfactorily.....

You're saying homosexual men can be masculine too, hence there should not be any objection to their being grouped under the 'gay' labels together with the feminine gendered men.

The same criteria should also apply to heterosexual men, shouldn't it. So it should be possible to be heterosexual as well as feminine gendered.

In that case, why are heterosexual transvestite and transexuals not included in the definition of straight? If straight means heterosexual and has nothing to do with gender, why were heterosexual transvestites and transexuals forced to take up another social identity?

If you don't know how they were treated, you should know that after being rejected by the straights they pleaded to be included with the gays. But the gays also rejected them because they liked women.

It was then that they were forced to adopt the transexual/ transgender identity. The straight world still associates transgenderism strongly and exclusively with 'homosexuality'. And so does the 'gay' world.

In fact many hardcore gay men still oppose the inclusion of transexuals under the broader "gender and sexual minorities" group. Hardly do they realise, that the first 'gay' movement of the west, the stonewall movement was started by none other than the heterosexuals --- the transvestites.

But you are a fanatic. You will refuse to accept that inspite of the insistence of the west to divide people on the basis of sexual orientation, its actually the gender which really matters with people in real life. A similar gender brings people together irrespective of what they like to eat, play or do in bed. People with different genders find it difficult to share the same social space or identity.

So if the masculine gendered 'heterosexual' men find it difficult to share the same social identity with feminine gendered heterosexual men, why should masculine gendered 'homosexual' men be forced to share the same social identity with feminine gendered homosexual men?

But more than that.......can you explain these double standards if everything is hunky dory? If things are really as straightforward as your society's sexual orientation theory claims, then why does the society need to manipulate human gender and sexuality in this way?

Why should heterosexual transvestites feel more comfortable with homosexuals? So much so that they are willing to fight for them.

Why should masculine gendered 'homosexual' men feel more comfortable with 'straights' than they do with 'homosexuals'? So much so that they are willing to disown their sexual need for men than leave the 'straight' identity.

Does this point to a wrong social grouping? What is the motive for dividing the society on a dubious basis?

 

I am surprised to see you across the discussion table. You have been a troll for far too long.

I think this has something to do with the deletion of your post by the moderator.

I must thank the moderator for this --- but I would say this action was long overdue. I am sure the rules of sciforums prohibit unnecessary harrassment or trolling to sabotage a discussion. I just hope the moderator will keep up the good work.

As far as the above description by wikipedia goes, who wrote it? A gay man? Wouldn't it reflect how gay men see this world?

This definition doesn't surprise me at all. It is the eyewash forwarded by the west. But they reflect what appears on the surface.

But the evidences that I have presented show what exists behind these masks. And the reality is very different indeed.

It is completely hilarious that once the surface has been proven to be just masks, you should still hold the 'masks' and claim that they are the real faces.

a. "Our sciforums"? I don't think the poll was an official one.

b. WE have given enough evidences as to why this or any other poll doesn't reflect the naturally occuring sexual need of men. We have also shown how the sexual identity of a person does not exactly reflect his true sexual nature. And that there are several social pressures that work in the society to force men to become or pretend to become heterosexuals.

c. If indeed the percentage given by you is accurate, then how do you explain the near universal incidence of male-male sex in Afghanistan (refer to the media report); and almost 100% incidence of sex between men in pre 1960s (as proved by the published paper whose link is attached)? Or yet undiscussed but important cases of near universal male-male sex in ancient Greece or in several ancient tribes such as those in Papa new Guniea?

 

What is apparent can sometimes be deceptive!

 

I have studied the history of homosexuality and how this subculture functions.

The homosexual space basically belongs to the feminine gendered male. It has belonged to them for more than two thousand years. They have always been known as the third sex from before the Greeks. Masculine gendered theoretically can never form part of the third-sex.

But when they are forced in the homosexual space they live like 'second class' citizens. It's not their space and they don't have much say in how that space is run or perceived by the others.

Masculine gendered men are still called the 'straight acting' guys in the gay circles. It is a sad comment on their position in the gay community. There gender is completely unacknowledged. They can't be masculine. They must just be acting. To be masculine is to be straight. Thus their entire life becomes a sham.

In the straight world their sexuality was a misfit. In the gay world their gender is a misfit.

 

And yet the homosexuals and heterosexuals have divided the society between themselves, while masculine gendered men who like men and feminine gendered men who like women are left to fit into the awkward sexual identities like second class citizens.

Gay men are so powerful in their own space and so fanatic that they refuse to share their space with heterosexual transvestites.

And Straight men (at least the vested interest group which controls the straight community) are so powerful and fanatic that they refuse to share their space with straight men who (openly) prefer men.