Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Buddha1
I was under the impression that nonsense was what you dealt in.
My mistake.
Anyways.
I admit, your obvious intellectual force intimidates me, for I am known to run from a verbal tirade, and your arguments fascinate me with their intricate weaves and colorful – rainbow like- patterns.
Truth is I always did find vaginal penetration ….yucky.
There’s nothing like my sphincter being stretched wide by a massive man-tool, until I yelp in ecstatic agony and plead for more.
Nor is there an equivalent to me slurping down another mans juice, licking my lips to get every drop before it dribbles down my chin and onto my heaving chest.
The epitome of dignity it is.
It is obvious that if man is to surpass nature, then the direction of anal penetration and vaginal, dyke, grating is the way to go.
Sex is a decisive factor in mans being. No doubt then that heterosexual sex, with its evolutionary methods and disgusting procreative motives, must be a natural mistake.
The intention was always towards a being that dresses well, lissps and knows how to decorate a flat with its eyes closed.
Sure we can say that whatever homosexual displays occur in nature are power displays in which the dominant male penetrates the submissive one in an act of suggestive superiority, and sure we can say that sex can be used to alleviate anxiety and offer the illusion of safety within a social group – more a consequence of weakness than strength......
We might even say that homosexuality might me the symptom of decadence where the previous moral system is deteriorating leaving the door open to whatever human whim comes along, or it might be some after-effect of commoditization, where money has placed a monetary price on all things, including human behaviors, to the point where everything is for sale and everything becomes buyable, including human dignity and freedom, and where a human being has become nothing but a number, a mind to be seduced with marketing and propaganda, and where even sex has become a pastime, a simple entertainment practice where who fucks who, in what way and using what method, becomes a matter of taste or disease, but let us ignore all that. It doesn’t disprove the fact that getting ones ass slammed feels ….ooooooh sooooooooo, goooood.
I’m sure you know all about that.
I only offer the appropriate label for your kind, used by the Greeks who are famed as being fanatics about teenage ass-fucking: Malaka.
The word suits you.
It is surprising, when one considers the modern fable concerning the ancients and their sexual practices, to find out how much they loathed the homosexual male.
Can you guess why?
Excuse my intrusion, oh flaming wise one.
I was under the impression that nonsense was what you dealt in.
My mistake.
I certainly do not have the cheeks for it, but I might have the balls for it.
Anyways.
I admit, your obvious intellectual force intimidates me, for I am known to run from a verbal tirade, and your arguments fascinate me with their intricate weaves and colorful – rainbow like- patterns.
Truth is I always did find vaginal penetration ….yucky.
There’s nothing like my sphincter being stretched wide by a massive man-tool, until I yelp in ecstatic agony and plead for more.
Nor is there an equivalent to me slurping down another mans juice, licking my lips to get every drop before it dribbles down my chin and onto my heaving chest.
The epitome of dignity it is.
It is obvious that if man is to surpass nature, then the direction of anal penetration and vaginal, dyke, grating is the way to go.
Sex is a decisive factor in mans being. No doubt then that heterosexual sex, with its evolutionary methods and disgusting procreative motives, must be a natural mistake.
The intention was always towards a being that dresses well, lissps and knows how to decorate a flat with its eyes closed.
Sure we can say that whatever homosexual displays occur in nature are power displays in which the dominant male penetrates the submissive one in an act of suggestive superiority, and sure we can say that sex can be used to alleviate anxiety and offer the illusion of safety within a social group – more a consequence of weakness than strength......
We might even say that homosexuality might me the symptom of decadence where the previous moral system is deteriorating leaving the door open to whatever human whim comes along, or it might be some after-effect of commoditization, where money has placed a monetary price on all things, including human behaviors, to the point where everything is for sale and everything becomes buyable, including human dignity and freedom, and where a human being has become nothing but a number, a mind to be seduced with marketing and propaganda, and where even sex has become a pastime, a simple entertainment practice where who fucks who, in what way and using what method, becomes a matter of taste or disease, but let us ignore all that. It doesn’t disprove the fact that getting ones ass slammed feels ….ooooooh sooooooooo, goooood.
I’m sure you know all about that.
I only offer the appropriate label for your kind, used by the Greeks who are famed as being fanatics about teenage ass-fucking: Malaka.
The word suits you.
It is surprising, when one considers the modern fable concerning the ancients and their sexual practices, to find out how much they loathed the homosexual male.
Can you guess why?
Last edited:
If Darwin is right then there is no basis for sexual desire amongst same-sex to exist at all, leave alone to exist at such a large extent. It's basically using this theory as a shield (and by suppressing/ destroying/ ignoring data from the wild) that the scientific community has been dismissing the experiences of countless number of men and women who have claimed same-sex desires, especially as gays and lesbians.MetaKron said:
There are enough evidences now to prove that Darwin's theory around animal sexuality was completely wrong. Particularly, the following claims of Darwin can be proved wrong and biased:
What Darwin has contended:
- The basic purpose of sex: According to Darwin Sex happens amongst animals only so they can reproduce. It has no other purpose. If there is pleasure in sex its only so that animals are driven to the opposite sex in order to procreate. If sexual desire leads to bonding it's only so that the male and female can rear their children.
This line of thinking was completley in tandem with the classical Christian stand of sex and its purpose. I'm going to show how Darwin was biased in its favour --- so much so that he chose to ignore the facts and mislead humankind.
This stand has been vehememntly and forcibly pursued by the scientific community till today.
- The theory of sexual selection: As per this theory, every conscious or unconscious action of the male is geared towards making him more competitive to be able to mate with the female, with the ultimate aim or procreation. The entire biological make-up, each and every cell of the male is designed to help in this mating process with the female (and vice versa). Even his social activities are designed to help him mate with the female. In short, if a male breathes it is in order to be able to mate with the female.
In the light of the above, male-female sex and sexual desires assumes enormous (even exclusive) and all encompassing biolgical importance and heterosexuality gets scientific validity.
When Darwin encountered any animal trait that led away from this male-female mating, he quickly sidelined this as an 'anomaly' or 'abnormality' that should not have been there. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for this was that such deviation must have an abnormal cause --- as in something going wrong. The scientific community has blindly followed this heterosexual agenda till date.
This is the same Christian bias of Darwin (though he may have opposed christianity he was heavily affected by its sexual mores!) mentioned earlier.
- The basic purpose of life: According to Darwin, the basic purpose of life is survival and the continuance of the species. Living beings just live so that they can live on, and when they die to be able to pass on their genes. That is all there is to it.
I'm going to prove how the heterosexual society, has cunningly glorified Darwin because he suits its agenda. This society is dangerously obsessed with 'quantity' of life, and has completeley discarded its 'quality'.
My contention is
- Purpose of sex: The basic purpose of sex is not procreation. The basic purpose is bonding --- that too particularly between the same sex. Reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex -- in that it just used sex to procreate because sex was the most effective avialable method.
- The sexual selection theory: It is absolutely crap, and the importance given to male-female sex or sexual desire is extremely out of context, and to prove that I have to prove the statement below:
- The purpose of life: What I'm going to prove is that the basic purpose of life is not survival but "meaningful survival". This means that the quality of life is just as important (or perhaps more important than) the quantity of life.
What Darwin has contended:
- The basic purpose of sex: According to Darwin Sex happens amongst animals only so they can reproduce. It has no other purpose. If there is pleasure in sex its only so that animals are driven to the opposite sex in order to procreate. If sexual desire leads to bonding it's only so that the male and female can rear their children.
This line of thinking was completley in tandem with the classical Christian stand of sex and its purpose. I'm going to show how Darwin was biased in its favour --- so much so that he chose to ignore the facts and mislead humankind.
This stand has been vehememntly and forcibly pursued by the scientific community till today.
- The theory of sexual selection: As per this theory, every conscious or unconscious action of the male is geared towards making him more competitive to be able to mate with the female, with the ultimate aim or procreation. The entire biological make-up, each and every cell of the male is designed to help in this mating process with the female (and vice versa). Even his social activities are designed to help him mate with the female. In short, if a male breathes it is in order to be able to mate with the female.
In the light of the above, male-female sex and sexual desires assumes enormous (even exclusive) and all encompassing biolgical importance and heterosexuality gets scientific validity.
When Darwin encountered any animal trait that led away from this male-female mating, he quickly sidelined this as an 'anomaly' or 'abnormality' that should not have been there. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for this was that such deviation must have an abnormal cause --- as in something going wrong. The scientific community has blindly followed this heterosexual agenda till date.
This is the same Christian bias of Darwin (though he may have opposed christianity he was heavily affected by its sexual mores!) mentioned earlier.
- The basic purpose of life: According to Darwin, the basic purpose of life is survival and the continuance of the species. Living beings just live so that they can live on, and when they die to be able to pass on their genes. That is all there is to it.
I'm going to prove how the heterosexual society, has cunningly glorified Darwin because he suits its agenda. This society is dangerously obsessed with 'quantity' of life, and has completeley discarded its 'quality'.
My contention is
- Purpose of sex: The basic purpose of sex is not procreation. The basic purpose is bonding --- that too particularly between the same sex. Reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex -- in that it just used sex to procreate because sex was the most effective avialable method.
- The sexual selection theory: It is absolutely crap, and the importance given to male-female sex or sexual desire is extremely out of context, and to prove that I have to prove the statement below:
- The purpose of life: What I'm going to prove is that the basic purpose of life is not survival but "meaningful survival". This means that the quality of life is just as important (or perhaps more important than) the quantity of life.
Buddha1 said:
It matters because otherwise you stand condemned by your own words:
"In at least two conferences my papers dominated the talks. I have written several more papers which have been presented by my colleagues. I have developed booklets, books, posters, plays, etc. on these issues. And they have been widely acknowldeged in my country and abroad. I’m writing two books for an international agency right now."
And "plays??" I must admit THAT gave me a big laugh!!!
And since you cannot produce ANY of those "works" for us, you have proven beyond any doubt that you ARE nothing but a liar!! Begone with you, fool!!!
Buddha1
Thank you for allowing me to escape with my ego intact and my delusions secure.
I only hope that the future hermaphroditic human species, you dream of, comes to pass and you are vindicated as one of the greatest visionaries of our time.
I truly agree with you.
Darwin was an imbecile while you, sitting there behind your computer screen trying to excuse your secret attraction to your male co-workers, are his worthy successor.
Heterosexuality is to blame for all of mankind’s woes.
I only hope that a future man will learn to launch epithets and catty remarks at his adversary instead of bullets and bombs, and I wish that a time will come when a clever comment about the others choice of shoes to go with his outfit will suffice to assuage confrontations and disagreements.
I, personally, find nothing degrading about having someone stick their member up my ass, nor do I see any power symbolism in it.
It’s just love, man.
One man loving another.
Indeed there are males that have sexual relationships with other males in the world.
But such ‘relationships’ are not always voluntary nor are they necessarily friendly. There’s an element of power in all human relationships, including sexual ones.
Now I leave you to your fascinating debate with your friends.
You are truly wise, oh great sitting, beer-gutted, faggot.
Thank you for allowing me to escape with my ego intact and my delusions secure.
I only hope that the future hermaphroditic human species, you dream of, comes to pass and you are vindicated as one of the greatest visionaries of our time.
I truly agree with you.
Darwin was an imbecile while you, sitting there behind your computer screen trying to excuse your secret attraction to your male co-workers, are his worthy successor.
Heterosexuality is to blame for all of mankind’s woes.
I only hope that a future man will learn to launch epithets and catty remarks at his adversary instead of bullets and bombs, and I wish that a time will come when a clever comment about the others choice of shoes to go with his outfit will suffice to assuage confrontations and disagreements.
I, personally, find nothing degrading about having someone stick their member up my ass, nor do I see any power symbolism in it.
It’s just love, man.
One man loving another.
Indeed there are males that have sexual relationships with other males in the world.
But such ‘relationships’ are not always voluntary nor are they necessarily friendly. There’s an element of power in all human relationships, including sexual ones.
Now I leave you to your fascinating debate with your friends.
Light said:
I'm a social worker, not a scientist. For one thing.
For another, my publications have no relevance for what I'm contending here -- or any where else. I'm not using my publications or conference abstracts as the basis for my contentions.
What matters here is that a real scientist has publihsed his work that proves what I'm saying. My publications/ abstracts deal with social issues that men face of which sexual need for other men is an integral part. But these issues are not dependant on recieving the stamps of an authoritative body.
If anyone is proving himself to be a fool its you. It's clear that you have nothing at all to do with science, nor do you know the first thing about it.Light said:And since you cannot produce ANY of those "works" for us, you have proven beyond any doubt that you ARE nothing but a liar!! Begone with you, fool!!!
But god forbid if you are one, then it further strengthens my case that science is becoming more and more of rubbish.
Why do I ever waste my time with nuts like you!Light said:
I've not seen anyone else's post requiring my or anyone else's published papers. So stop claiming your own statements as that of the others.
Now run along and don't waste my time. I'm a serious and busy person. Come back when you can deal with the published work I've have used. If you can't deal with them you have no right to ask for them. I'm not going to answer any more of your posts meant to disrupt the discussion.
Buddha1 said:
Hardly. It's you who have discredited yourself and created a bad impression by openly displaying the fact that you are both a liar and a fraud.
I'm not about to leave you alone untill you prove different by showing us your "publications." Feeling foolish yet? Sure you are. Trapped by your very own words.
Where have I said that I have published my papers? Where have I based my arguments on my publications (books and booklets)? Or have said that I've written papers etc. in the context of or support of my contentions? Or have promised to present them as proofs of my contentions? How does the fact that I'm not presenting my books/ booklets make me a liar?Light said:
If you can show me one post where I have done so, I'll admit I'm a liar. Otherwise you will have to admit that you're just trying to disrupt the thread because you cannot prove me wrong. But I guess you're not man enough to do that!
Buddha1 said:
Again, I'm not the least concerned about the actual contents of any such claimed publications.
You have stated CLEARLY that you produced them - and your inability to present them does much more than just cast doubt on your credibility as an individual. It shows you to be a complete fraud and therefore no one should pay any attention to anything you say. Fraud!
You said you're a scientist. What proof have you given for that?Light said:
You said you're a man. What proof have you given for that?
You said you're married, what proof have you given for that?
YOu said you have kids what proof have you given for that?
You said you're not 'gay', what proof have you given for that?
And most of all, why should anyone need proofs for all that! Can anyone else support you in this demand and say it' s justifiable?
Last edited:
My contentions and the supportive evidences that I've given speak for themselves. You or anyone else have not been able to disprove any of them. That is why you are resorting to such unmanly tactics in the hope of beating me. Now I have real doubts that you're a scientist. No respectable scientist would behave in the manner that you have shown. Trying to avoid discussin the matter and trying to score points by indulging in useless mudslinging.Light said:
I think you should show proof that you're indeed a scientist otherwise get lost!
- Status