Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Light said:Hardly!
Produce the proof!
Buddha1, are you going to illustrate some more case histories? I've been sidetracked for the last couple of days, but all I see here is alot of yelling and namecalling, so maybe it's best I stay in my hut. Polishing my spear...
Giambattista said:
Hello,
Buddah1 claimed to have publish books, etc. which is one of the ways a researcher gains credibility. (The best, of course in a peer-reviewed publication). But when asked where to find that material, he stonewalled and attempted to distract. The fact that he won't (cannot!) produce indicates that he is no true researcher as he claims and is just a common liar. He has cast doubt on everything he has said or ever will say. No one can take him serious any longer (unless they just like being fooled).
Light said:
Sounds like it may be truthful. I was the only one who gave credence to his theories, at least in part, but I admit, I would like to see some papers.
Giambatista, sounds like what may be truthful? What papers are you talking about? I've not published any papers. I'm not even a scientist. I have published books etc., but they are immaterial here and I don't want to reveal my identity, and I don't have to. People have to contend with me on the basis the evidences I give not on the stamp given to my work by any scientific authority.Giambattista said:
I am not going to listen to eunuchs like Light, somehow I'm tempted to respond to his posts.
No scientific authority will approve that kind of work and really who cares for publishing papers in scientific journals. Maybe, someday, you can have access to some of the materials I"ve published, but for now......there are enough evidences for you and others to go by.Giambattista said:
By the way, it's NOT true that only you agree with my theories. Even some of my opponents agree in principle with what I say. Even fools like Light know I'm speaking the truth, otherwise they would have taken my evidences to pieces.
This clown first wanted External proof (read his earlier posts( when I gave him that, now he wants my papers --- when there aren't any. I'll advice you to steer clear of him, in order to continue this very serious discussion uninterrupted.
Buddha1 said:
I have nothing that needs proving. All I've ever done here is present information that is in the public domain and challenge bogus stuff - like you. I claim no research, no publications, etc.
But you, on the other hand, began by claiming that you HAVE done research. Also presented papers, published books, etc., etc. And really all I have asked you to do is show proof of your publications. You cannot - therefore you have no credibility and are a complete fraud. And I've challenged you numerous times to prove me wrong. You have not - because you cannot!
I have not!Light said:
What matters is proof (published proof if you please!) and not who published it. If I read other people's work and base my results on their work, it's also research. You Fool! I'm not required to present my published work as proof of my contentions. A proof is a proof whoever publishes it.
Show me one post where I have claimed my papers or books as proof or support of what I'm claiming?
Buddha1 said:
Really??? Lying again. What about this: "Believe me it's not as simple as that. I've spent 10 years researching the issue. The whole thing is too complicated, is part of a much larger agenda, and in fact has roots at least two and a half thousands of years ago."
And this:
"I have presented several papers in national and international conferences based on my work experiences, where I have shared the dais with leading scientists and scholars, from across the world --- and I must say the response and respect I get is totally different from how you treat non-scientists. They value empirical evidence immensely. 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..."
Your claims above are clear attempts to validate and lend credence to what you are claiming here. A ten-year child could see that.
So... Where are your "publications", fraud?
Light said:
That's talking about my experiences. Its still not claiming my published work in support of my contentions. You Liar! My experiences are only a part of my support. For those who relate with it fine. For others there are the published works.
That's only an introduction of myself. I'm not saying believe me because I've published papers or booklets. You're a liar again!Light said:
Light said:
My claims are well proved by the following published works:
- Evidences from the nature (animals)
- More evidences from the animals as well as from traditional societies.
- Evidences from the nature: mammals and birds
- - Evidence from mythology.
- - Queer Bonobos
- Evidence from the modern west
Others have also contributed evidences:
- Evidences from a traditional society
I'm not required to reveal my identity here, unless and until I choose it. iF you think you can play on that vulnerability (talk about pressures to be heterosexual!), you're fooling yourself.Light said:
WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE PUBLISHED WORKS I HAVE QUOTED IN SUPPORT OF MY CONTENTIONS. THEY ARE THE BACKBONE OF MY CONTENTIONS. MY BASIC SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCES.
THAT YOU ARE IGNORING THESE SUPPORTS PROVES THAT YOU'RE A CROOK! IF YOU ARE FOR REAL PROVE THE FOLLOWING WRONG! I PROMISE I WILL REVEAL MY BOOKS AND PAPERS RIGHT HERE! THAT'S A DEAL.......NOW HERE'S ANOTHER CHANCE TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE INDEED A MAN.
- 1. Evidences from the nature (animals)
- More evidences from the animals as well as from traditional societies.
- Evidences from the nature: mammals and birds
- - Evidence from mythology.
- - Queer Bonobos
- Evidence from the modern west
Others have also contributed evidences:
- Evidences from a traditional society
THAT YOU ARE IGNORING THESE SUPPORTS PROVES THAT YOU'RE A CROOK! IF YOU ARE FOR REAL PROVE THE FOLLOWING WRONG! I PROMISE I WILL REVEAL MY BOOKS AND PAPERS RIGHT HERE! THAT'S A DEAL.......NOW HERE'S ANOTHER CHANCE TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE INDEED A MAN.
- 1. Evidences from the nature (animals)
- More evidences from the animals as well as from traditional societies.
- Evidences from the nature: mammals and birds
- - Evidence from mythology.
- - Queer Bonobos
- Evidence from the modern west
Others have also contributed evidences:
- Evidences from a traditional society
Buddha1 said:
What you have failed to grasp so far is that I have no interest in what others have said on the topic. In fact, I find the whole subject rather boring and droll.
What I want to see is for you to provide provide proof of what you have claimed to have done OR to simply admit that you have lied to everyone who had read your threads here. Nothing less will dissuade me or turn me in a different direction.
I don't care about what you think of me! What I care about is my assertions. I may be a complete liar, a person with no credibility. But if what I'm saying is borne out by other people's work, you don't have a case here. We are not discussing my reputation here. We are discussing these contentions here which are not dependant upon my reputation or credibility.Light said:
So you don't really want to prove the evidences I have provided wrong! You only are interested in my personal life or credibility. May I ask why such a unknown entity deserves such an exclusive attention and time, while such important issues do not.Light said:
You are wasting this important thread space so that you can expose my personal character! That's a terrible misuse of people's time and precious threadspace. Who cares about my personal life. There are any numbers of 'devils' and 'frauds' roaming in these forums. Who cares!
Giambatista,Giambattista said:
If I tell you directly you may not 'trust' me. I thought it should come out during the discussions.
About 6 years ago, when my theories about sexual need for other males being univeral amongst men started developing, I figured it would be something like a scale with two opposites of exclusive sexual attraction for men and for women, with the comparative intensity of the two gradually decreasing (or increasing) from one extreme to the other. According to this theory (of which I had no proof) sexual need between men and women in the species as a whole were 'equal'.
But as my life and work experiences increased, I started to feel that there is more of sexual need amongst men than the above theory accounts for. At least as far as masculine men were concerned it seemed like hundred percent of them had a strong sexual need for other men. Almost all of them exagggerated their sexual need for women, so it was difficult to tell what the natural levels of those interests were.
Today, after researching history and other cultures, as well as the wild life (I am talking about researching published papers if you're bent on them like light!), and after much personal/ work experience, I think I can say that there is a direct co-relation between masculinity and a need to bond sexually with other masculine men (I'm talking about bonds, not just sex!).
Instead of making one graph for the entire male population, I think there could be two different graphs for masculine gendered and feminine gendered males. Amongst the masculine gendered males, the sexual need for men is much higher and stronger. Amongst the feminine gendered males the sexual need is most likely equally divided towards females and males. Although most are 'bisexuals'.
Amongst masculine men, the basic sexual drive is for other masculine men, while a secondary drive exists towards women.
The total graph for males may still look like the original one I had worked upon, but that depends upon the proportion of masculine and feminine gendered males in the total male population.
Am I making it any easier for you! There are no conclusive proofs of this but there are strong pointers both from 'published papers' and from empirical evidences.
There are two male genders in nature.Giambattista said:
One is the masculine or the straight male gender.
The other one is the feminine or the two-spirited male gender.
The straight male gender is almost universally, predominantly attracted towards other males. Secondary sexual attraction for females exists in many straight men.
The feminine gendered or the two spirited males are divided into two parts: The first one whose predominant sexual drive is towards women, and the other whose predominant sexual drive is towards men.
The first one of the original two spirited males correspond with the 'true' heterosexuals (minus the so-called homophobia) and the latter as the true 'homosexuals'. It will be wrong to see the 'straight' male sexual need for othe men as being the same as the two-sprited male's sexual need for men. At the same time it would be a mistake to view the straight male's sexual need for women as the same as the two spirited male's sexual need for women.
I have not really finalised my theories as yet, but scattered evidences across wild life, history and contemporary cultures strongly point in this direction. I hope we will get around to discuss them.
None of the eastern religions amongst the eastern religions (all modern religions did emanate from the east!) say anything about what you guys refer to as homosexuality. Of course Christianity and Islam don't say anything about homosexuality as well. They only rant against sex between men -- which is one part of homosexuality.Giambattista said:
While there are lots of gay and lesbian people who are brave......and many of them are there on this board.....it will be wrong to say that in general people take on the 'gay' or 'lesbian' label because they are brave. I think it also has to do with the fact that most people who take it do that because it suits their gender make up, while the straight space does not suit them at all. Therefore they have an easy choice. It is easy to be brave when you find your place in life, your forte that you can protect with all your might. And of course there are the others like you.Giambattista said:
I think the real brave ones are the straight men who have accepted their sexual need for men (whether or not they can be open about it) and true heterosexuals who have accepted their gender orientation (whether or not they can be open about it), and are trying to exist in this hostile world which has just no place for them.
- Status