Buddha1 is trying to infect our society with homosexuality

[Far far better]

She didn't like it and he was thinking about sucking off his best friend, Habib...

Seriously, I believe that they are only 'whores' if the sex is outside of wedlock. Although, it's probable that even in this situation, the sex is only for procreative purposes. Something similar to the old-school Christian beliefs. It's obligatory not entertaining.

Sex is only entertaining when your fist is wrapped around your buddy's wang while his mouth is sucking on yours.


Brings to mind a question.
If masturbation and oral sex is ok with men... is it ok with women? Does mutual masturbation with a woman make her a whore?

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

buddha1....
Your mother sister and daughters are all whores and you want our mothers, sisters and daughters to be whores too! We must kick you out of this sacred place. Go back to where you came from. Infect your own land. You are not fit for a free society.

-MT

 

[Buddha1]

admit it buddha your gay

It's a deal. I'll admit I'm gay. You just have to prove that 95% of men do not have a sexual need for other men. But no fake sci-forum polls. We can study other scientific polls You have to prove through evidences --- scientific and otherwise.

If you do that, I'll admit that I'm gay.

Otherwise, you will have to admit that you have a sexual need for other men

or that you are a wimp.

Is that a deal?

Are you really a man? Can you take that challengne? Or are you a wimp too?

 

[Buddha1]

buddha1....
Your mother sister and daughters are all whores and you want our mothers, sisters and daughters to be whores too! We must kick you out of this sacred place. Go back to where you came from. Infect your own land. You are not fit for a free society.

-MT

Mosheh you're wimp and your father was a wimp. I don't think your mother and sisters were whores.

 

[Buddha1]

from what i can tell nobody buys buddhas drivel

From what I can tell, you don't oppose someone so fiercely, if you don't take them seriously!

 

[Buddha1]

He is influencing children to try homosexuality, if children are not preprogrammed to be homo, is it ok for Buddha1 to propagate his kind through your children ?

Questions:

1. If children are programmed to have a sexual need for men, will it then justify influencing them? If they are not, how can reading a positive information change their natural need? What kind of nature is it that just changes by one man approving it?

2. If children are not programmed to be hate a sexual need for men, does it justify the society's influencing them to hate it?

3. If children are not programmed to develop heterosexual relationships, is it justfied to influence them to be heterosexual?

 

[Buddha1]

Is being a gay spammer a bannable offense?

If you prove I'm a gay spanner, I'll stop posting everywhere!

 

[Buddha1]

Your mother had sex with your father (presumably a male), resulting (unfortunately), in you, so if we were to use your argument, that would make her a whore.

Just a clarification. My mother is wedded to my father. That's outside the definion of a whore.

In any case, I didn't seriously mean that thing about 'whores'. It was meant to make that foolish guy anomalous see reason.

 

[Buddha1]

From what I've read, and I must admit that I find little of interest in Buddha's threads even though I do peruse them from time to time for reasons of jocularity, Buddha's point is that 'gay' is when you take it up the ass. In other words, anal penetration is making yourself feminine. Degrading yourself. Etc... I'm not entirely sure what his position on the 'giver' in the situation would be, but, if he's not 'taking it' then he probably maintains his masculinity and is thus not a 'girl with hairy arms'.

Buddha is not pushing a gay (by the former definition) lifestyle. Buddha is desirous of mutual masturbation and oral sex. It is these activities which he believes are normal masculine activities. Not anal sex.

I also believe that I've gathered from Buddha's posts that he's from some (middle-)eastern country. This may be mere scuttlebutt, but I've heard that such attitudes are not uncommon in these locales. He's even given the reason why they are so prevalent. Because a woman who has sex is a whore. And there is a mandate in their society to prevent women from being whores.


A question to Buddha. Do you agree with honor killings? Or perhaps the cutting off of noses, etc...?


There is a great difference between our cultures and thus it is difficult to pass judgement on different cultures with different values, but Buddha's culture is quite strange and bizarre. In some aspects it is disgusting and brutal. The shame of his obsession with this subject is that the only aspect of his culture that comes across in his discussions is the brutal and disgusting aspects. His hatred of women (manifesting itself in a 'pedestal' type situation. Women must remain pristine and pure or else they lose all value...) His inability to understand that his cultural values are not the 'norm'. That they're not even close. Buddha suffers from a cultural blindness that is quite fascinating if one maintains an abstract viewpoint.

This is all, of course, assuming that Buddha is not a sock puppet and a troll.
I do wonder what New South Wales has to do with the situation. As well as the rest of the listed cities: "Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania .... and..... La Jolla, California....and...California State University, Northridge....Birmingham, Alabama...and...Osborn, New South Wales....and...Australia Gosnells, Western Australia."

This post pretending its best to sound 'scholarly' and 'reasonable' is just another proof that whatever I say is making a mark. And the vested interest group has been extremely annoyed.

I don't have to answer any of your silly questions about my culture. There are various drawbacks of my culture.......but does that negate everything that I've said here.

Why are you skirting the issue? You can start a post about honour killings and if I feel like I'll reply.

 

[Buddha1]

Brings to mind a question.
If masturbation and oral sex is ok with men... is it ok with women? Does mutual masturbation with a woman make her a whore?

Brings to mind a question:

If a man can be a 'homo' if he has sex with another man, why can't a woman who has sex with a man she is not married to be a 'whore'?

See the problem is not only with my culture. Your culture is not free from inequalities too! Only, my culture is anti-women, yours is anti-men. Does that make yours any better?

 

[Buddha1]

I can sleep with a GAY in his bed, because its his life in danger by doing so, i.e. if he starts to touch me.

He's just been spurned by so many gay men that he is upset!

 

[Buddha1]

He is influencing children to try homosexuality, if children are not preprogrammed to be homo, is it ok for Buddha1 to propagate his kind through your children ?

James R thinks such thoughts of mine are a result of Homophobia, I think he is a gay too for being with Buddha1's above mission.

Is it ok for such men to marry women just to reproduce and cheat on them.

Should we not fear that our children can be influenced by this man just because he thinks 95% men are GAY ? Is this what we should call Homophobia; I think homophobia is fear of Gays and not fear of loosing your children to this memetic virus.

I can sleep with a GAY in his bed, because its his life in danger by doing so, i.e. if he starts to touch me.

Child molester are themselves molested as children, so just because they think its ok, we should agree with them ? Buddha1 was brought up among 95% men fucking eachother, including him through his anus.

Do U agree with me, i.e. if U r not HOMO.

PROOF THAT 100% MEN HAVE A SEXUAL NEED FOR OTHER MEN! THEY CAN BE INSPIRED TO FORM RELATIONSHIPS WITH MEN!

IF THERE WAS ANY DOUBT IN ANYONE'S MIND, THIS SHOULD CLEAR IT!

 

[Far far better]

This post pretending its best to sound 'scholarly' and 'reasonable' is just another proof that whatever I say is making a mark. And the vested interest group has been extremely annoyed.

Curses! Foiled again! *Snidely Whiplash voice* I'll get you yet, Pearl Pureheat!! And your dog too!!!

Could you at least confirm my statement that you're against anal sex but for masturbation and oral sex? When is the last time you masturbated some other guy? Do you like it when the guy's got a beard who is sucking you off? Do you have a beard? Does it tickle?

I don't have to answer any of your silly questions about my culture. There are various drawbacks of my culture.......but does that negate everything that I've said here.

Yes. And I mentioned cultural relativism and thus why I couldn't really judge your culture based on my own. I only mentioned your culture as a means of perhaps placing you in perspective for the 'folks at home'. I also mentioned your culture because we who read you here get so little from you since you've got this insanely one-track mind and all that we only taste such a small fragment of your culture and a twisted version of it at that.

Although, it is quite possible that it's not as twisted as it may seem. I'm giving your culture the benefit of the doubt here. I think you're the crazy one, it's quite possible that your culture doesn't suffer from the treatment you offer it. This would be bad for your culture. But. Again. Cultural relativism and all.

Why are you skirting the issue? You can start a post about honour killings and if I feel like I'll reply.

Skirting what issue? Do I have the urge to masturbate with my male friends? To suck them off while they suck me off? No. I don't. I guess that makes me part of your 5%. You won't believe me, I know. But I don't expect you to.

As to honor killings... nah. I just wondered is all. I'm not that interested in the subject to start a thread on it. It's relevant here and that's why I asked. You're the one who's talking about women being whores, you know.

Let's try a concrete example. Your sister. You find out she's not a virgin. What do you do? Of course, you try to find out who's deflowered her so you can put the hurt on him, but what of her? What do you do with her? With the whore that she is.

If a man can be a 'homo' if he has sex with another man, why can't a woman who has sex with a man she is not married to be a 'whore'?

Apples and oranges. The labels don't match. A man is a 'homo' if he has sex with another man just like a woman would be a 'homo' (lesbian) if she has sex with another woman. I think that the label 'whore' should apply to both if either of them have sex outside of wedlock. Do you believe in man-whores? Apparently not, right? Is there a negative connotation to a man who has sex (with a woman) outside of wedlock or is the fault entirely the woman's? And what of lesbian sex?

See the problem is not only with my culture. Your culture is not free from inequalities too! Only, my culture is anti-women, yours is anti-men. Does that make yours any better?

My culture is alirght with men sucking each other off. Therefore, by your standards, it's not 'anti-men'. Your problem is with the label 'gay' which is a personal problem, I think. You're gay. Accept it. You like sex with men. That's gay. By definition. Maybe we could call it 'weak homosexuality' seeing as how you don't go in for anal sex.

What about felching? You like to taste semen, right? So, would you like to suck it from a straw from another guy's ass? And what about declawed hamsters?

Here's a question. What about if you stuck your penis in the guys armpit and sorta fucked his armpit? Or what if there were two guys and they laid belly to belly and you came up behind them and fucked them, not in their asses, but sorta between them, you know what I'm saying? Or how about if it was in the guys ass crack? And you sorta pushed his ass cheeks together while you did your thing?

There's lots of ways to 'masturbate' aren't there? Where do you draw the line?

And do you spit or swallow?

Are you turned on right now?

 

[Buddha1]

Could you at least confirm my statement that you're against anal sex but for masturbation and oral sex? When is the last time you masturbated some other guy? Do you like it when the guy's got a beard who is sucking you off? Do you have a beard? Does it tickle?

So you think you can defeat me by portraying my assertions as nothing but my own fantasies and needs!

Well, nice try!

My threads are not my personal opinions or tastes. They are based on my extensvie work with men. And a study of male sexual behaviour all over the world. And I'll share all of that. It's all documented by the western scientists.

Yes. And I mentioned cultural relativism and thus why I couldn't really judge your culture based on my own. I only mentioned your culture as a means of perhaps placing you in perspective for the 'folks at home'. I also mentioned your culture because we who read you here get so little from you since you've got this insanely one-track mind and all that we only taste such a small fragment of your culture and a twisted version of it at that.

Another attempt at ducking the issue by trying to make it a 'cultural issue'. Why don't you face the issues instead of ducking them.

I am not talking about this culture or that. I'm talking about the nature. My endeavour is to get at the nature of men, by removing the influences of cultures.

And almost all of my evidences have been from western sources. Whether it is the biological research on animals or the research papers from American Universities or various quotes from western scientists, anthropoligists and Philosophers. Even the evidence from Afghanistan was procured by the westerners.

Although, it is quite possible that it's not as twisted as it may seem. I'm giving your culture the benefit of the doubt here. I think you're the crazy one, it's quite possible that your culture doesn't suffer from the treatment you offer it. This would be bad for your culture. But. Again. Cultural relativism and all.

Again, whether my culture is twisted or not, the response of a seemingly scientific forum to an issue like this proves amply that the west is utterly twisted and fucked up. For all its claims of being a free and fair society.

Skirting what issue? Do I have the urge to masturbate with my male friends?

That your powerbase depends on making 'heterosexuality' seem the majority, normal and manly thing to do. But you can't defend that stand with arguements. So you resort to skirting the issue and trying to personalise, trivialise, culturalise, the issue and seek to divert attention by abusing, accusing, ridiculing, calling names, threateing and whatever else you guys can think of.

To suck them off while they suck me off? No. I don't. I guess that makes me part of your 5%. You won't believe me, I know. But I don't expect you to.

You're right. I don't. It's not my fault. If only in real life, those who profess the heterosexual identity could stick to their profession.

As to honor killings... nah. I just wondered is all. I'm not that interested in the subject to start a thread on it. It's relevant here and that's why I asked. You're the one who's talking about women being whores, you know.

If you can put down men by calling them 'gay' for their 'unacceptable' sexual behaviour, why are you so sensitive about women being called 'whores' for their unacceptable sexual behaviour. I said that to expose you people.

Apples and oranges. The labels don't match. A man is a 'homo' if he has sex with another man just like a woman would be a 'homo' (lesbian) if she has sex with another woman. I think that the label 'whore' should apply to both if either of them have sex outside of wedlock. Do you believe in man-whores? Apparently not, right? Is there a negative connotation to a man who has sex (with a woman) outside of wedlock or is the fault entirely the woman's? And what of lesbian sex?

The word whore and homo are perfectly and indirectly proportional to each other. When a society becomes anti woman, it run downs women's unacceptable behaviour as 'whore'. When the society becomes anti-men it runs down unacceptable male seuxal behaviour as 'homo'.

You won't find men being run down as 'homo' in a pro-male society, becuase every man indulge in it. You won't find the heterosexual society running down women as 'whores' because society wants to promote casual hetero-sex.

On the other hand, the heterosexual society went ahead and concretised the word homo by giving it scientific credence. Without any proof of course!

As the society goes from pro-man to anti man, the word 'homo' starts surfacing, and the word whore starts losing its sting. This is an integral part of 'heterosexualisation' as I'm witnessing it in my own culture.

My culture is alirght with men sucking each other off. Therefore, by your standards, it's not 'anti-men'.

No your culture is not alright with men sucking each other. They are only alright with homosexuals sucking each other. I mean I have generated this furore only because I am saying that men too want sex with other men.

And yes, your society is definitely anti-man. Its a society of wimps. For wimps are not sensitive to the needs of men. They are only sensitive to the needs of women. They would gladly allow women to rule over the entire male race.

Just see how the heterosexual men come up to defend women, but are against the idea that their is any pressure of social masculinity on men --- not of heterosexuality (if we are to believe them)!

Your problem is with the label 'gay' which is a personal problem, I think. You're gay. Accept it. You like sex with men. That's gay. By definition. Maybe we could call it 'weak homosexuality' seeing as how you don't go in for anal sex.

No, I'm very clear about my identity. Thank you! And I'm not gay. In fact I have already shown you that the word gay does'nt mean what its alleged to mean. Your definitions are faulty. Why else are you guys afraid of discussing your definitions.

And why are you interested in my identity in any case? Why are you so eager to label me as 'gay'. I can tell you why. So that you can sideline everything that I'm saying as being a 'gay' issue. So then you won't have to deal with what you see as threat to your 'social masculinity'.

Sorry, no success to you so far!

Though its a challenge, if you can answer my questions about the defintion of 'gay', 'straight' heterosexual, homosexual and sexual orientation, I will readily admit that I'm gay.

ARe you man enough? I guess not!

What about felching? You like to taste semen, right? So, would you like to suck it from a straw from another guy's ass? And what about declawed hamsters?

Just as much as you like wearing dresses and being whipped by dominant females, like true heterosexuals are supposed to do.

Here's a question. What about if you stuck your penis in the guys armpit and sorta fucked his armpit? Or what if there were two guys and they laid belly to belly and you came up behind them and fucked them, not in their asses, but sorta between them, you know what I'm saying? Or how about if it was in the guys ass crack? And you sorta pushed his ass cheeks together while you did your thing?There's lots of ways to 'masturbate' aren't there? Where do you draw the line?

And do you spit or swallow?

What if your make up got ruined while you're licking stuff from your dominat woman's pussy!

Are you turned on right now?

I'm sure you're heading for your dresses right now.

By the way, did you know that the high point of 'heterosexuality' is transexuality. You become who you love. Like attracts like. Only a person who feels he's a woman from inside can be a true heterosexual.

Is there any other 'scientific' things there is left for you to say, or can I go do my work?

 

[Far far better]

So you think you can defeat me by portraying my assertions as nothing but my own fantasies and needs!

No. I was asking you whether or not your stance was that mutual masturbation and oral sex with other men was ok but anal sex was not in your view.

My threads are not my personal opinions or tastes. They are based on my extensvie work with men. And a study of male sexual behaviour all over the world. And I'll share all of that. It's all documented by the western scientists.

Your extensive work with men? Then why is it documented by western scientists and not by you?

Another attempt at ducking the issue by trying to make it a 'cultural issue'.

No. It was me, once again, stating that culture differences really can't be judged. Ok. I can see your point. I'm saying that I can't judge your culture and you're saying that it's not your culture that needs to be judged but rather male nature. Well, what can I say? What can anybody say? You can 'prove' that men want other men sexually all you want, but that doesn't change our self-assurance that we (I can only speak for myself, but I have confidence that the rest are equally self assured) have no sexual desire for other men.

That your powerbase depends on making 'heterosexuality' seem the majority, normal and manly thing to do. But you can't defend that stand with arguements.

Ever consider that when something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... it might just be a duck?

Arguments to prove that men want women not other men? A simple observation of society will show that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You remind me of old-school philosophers always going on about the real world being hidden behind the illusory world. Ever consider that there is no illusion? No veil to tear asunder to get at the reality behind? What you see is what you get?

If you can put down men by calling them 'gay' for their 'unacceptable' sexual behaviour, why are you so sensitive about women being called 'whores' for their unacceptable sexual behaviour. I said that to expose you people.

Who's being sensitive about women being called whores? The technical term would be slut, in my opinion, as a whore is a women who has sex for money. A slut is a woman who has sex because she likes it.

And why do you feel the term 'gay' is insulting?

The word whore and homo are perfectly and indirectly proportional to each other. When a society becomes anti woman, it run downs women's unacceptable behaviour as 'whore'. When the society becomes anti-men it runs down unacceptable male seuxal behaviour as 'homo'.

You won't find men being run down as 'homo' in a pro-male society, becuase every man indulge in it. You won't find the heterosexual society running down women as 'whores' because society wants to promote casual hetero-sex.

So, by that logic, then there is nothing wrong with women sleeping around outside of wedlock, right? The term 'whore' is merely society's way of putting down women for what should be considered natural behavior? In that case, men can go back to fucking women instead of each other since there's no issue with needing to keep the women pure.

Right?

On the other hand, the heterosexual society went ahead and concretised the word homo by giving it scientific credence. Without any proof of course!

As the society goes from pro-man to anti man, the word 'homo' starts surfacing, and the word whore starts losing its sting. This is an integral part of 'heterosexualisation' as I'm witnessing it in my own culture.

So. Then to make things 'right' again you need to make it so that women are whores and men can masturbate with each other without being called gay?

In that vein, I once more ask you what you think of honor killings. It would seem to me that they would be crucial in your defense of the 'pro-man' system.

Do you think it's possible for there to be a society where men can jack each other off and women can sleep around without being homos or whores?

No your culture is not alright with men sucking each other. They are only alright with homosexuals sucking each other. I mean I have generated this furore only because I am saying that men too want sex with other men.

You've generated this furor because you're obsessed and are frankly hilarious in your posturings. As Satyr said somewhere, even the most idiotic poster can feel safe in insulting you and debating you because you are seriously whack, mac.

And as to only homosexuals sucking each other off, that's not necessarily true. There are also bisexuals, and there are those just experimenting, you know, like in college...

Homosexual would refer to those who have made a choice to stick with the male gender entirely.

And yes, your society is definitely anti-man. Its a society of wimps. For wimps are not sensitive to the needs of men. They are only sensitive to the needs of women. They would gladly allow women to rule over the entire male race.

That's a pretty funny statement. You know, I've always found it funny how middle-eastern countries seem to have this idea about us. For instance, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, they were always trying to sell us how hard the women had it over there, like it was really the selling point that would bring us to action. "We must save women everywhere!!! Go Team America. Fuck yeah!!" Ever think that the focus on women really wasn't that big a deal? That there were deeper issues involved? That we don't really care if you cover your women in burkas or whatever?

You know, speaking of burkas, I watched some show on HBO or something about women in burkas who were getting together to share sex tips for sex with their husbands. They'd go to each other's houses and talk about fucking and sucking and then they'd wax each other and clean their pussies with the showerhead over the toilet, all the time keeping their faces behind the burka but letting everything else hang out... I wonder if they're dead now? This was in Saudi Arabia I think.

In fact I have already shown you that the word gay does'nt mean what its alleged to mean. Your definitions are faulty. Why else are you guys afraid of discussing your definitions.

Ok. Ok. Gay is a bit... ambiguous. It could refer to homosexuals and to bisexuals. So. Let's just stick with bisexual then. You are a bisexual man. You desire sex with men and with women. But only with your wife, so that means most of your sexual activity is with other men. Right?

And why are you interested in my identity in any case?

Just to watch you squirm, my man.

Though its a challenge, if you can answer my questions about the defintion of 'gay', 'straight' heterosexual, homosexual and sexual orientation, I will readily admit that I'm gay.

What questions?

Just as much as you like wearing dresses and being whipped by dominant females, like true heterosexuals are supposed to do.

Well. I'm not really into cross-dressing, but being whipped on occasion isn't such a bad thing. Especially when I've been a bad boy.

What if your make up got ruined while you're licking stuff from your dominat woman's pussy!

Have you ever eaten pussy? A lovely treat to eat. Very sweet and can't be beat.

Is there any other 'scientific' things there is left for you to say, or can I go do my work?

Yes. Get to work. We are all anxious to read the further homoerotic (there's no term for bisexual erotic) adventures that you'll bring to light. Yummy.

 

[Ophiolite]

(there's no term for bisexual erotic) .

What about, I know I;m going out on a limb here, bisexual erotic?

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

I WANNA KNOW... did buddha1 grow up with a daddy? or not?

was he ever around?

was he gay?
did he care at all about you? buddha1?

it might explain alot.

-MT

 

[leopold]

buddhas claims have been refuted
in the masculinity and men thread

 

[Huwy]

please post qualifications for your claim that you're a "humanologist"

 

[RubiksMaster]

If you prove I'm a gay spanner, I'll stop posting everywhere!

First of all, you have 10 POSTS IN A ROW on this page alone. Second of all, in the month you have been here, you have started 10 different threads on sexuality. People don't seem to be agreeing with you, yet you keep pushing your radical gay agenda. That, my friend, makes you a gay spammer.

Buddha1, you always seem to assume that things are verified scientific research, but you never can show the results. You just don't make sense in your claims.

Frankly, I am getting tired of always seeing gay agenda threads here. I think it is safe to assume that of most people here, too, because no one really seems to agree with you. Either you show some REAL evidence of your claims, or show some credentials, no one is going to take you seriously.

That is why I don't post in Buddha1's gay threads.