Masculinity and men

Status
Not open for further replies.
I masturbate primarily with my right hand, occasionally switching to the left as it feels like a bird's doing it.

Extrapolating from this data I would conclude that approximately 100% of men are onanismically ambidextrous.

I believe this answers all of your questions. Give me my Palm Pilot.
 
That's irrelevant. One of the ways in which you and others want to hamper my efforts is by trying to stop me from putting together evidences in an understandable manner by deliberately diverting from the issues.
 
Well, one thing is for sure......that you guys don't really want to get at the crux of the matter....... as long as you clown around like this.......I don't think a serious issue like sexuality deserves to be taken so lightly as you clowns are doing here.

You may feel you are hijacking the issues raised, but you are again mistaken.
 
Ach, I meant that, according to your new labels, heterosexuals are the gay fags. You know, happy and shit. Defintiltey not lumberjacks, construction men or cowboys.
 
Ophiolite said:
Bhudda1, is there any place in your pantheon of sexuality for the autosexual? I have always believed that 95% of men masturbate with their right hand. Do you think it is in fact the reverse? In this corrupt, suppressed society, should we let our left hand know what our right is doing? I can't come up with an answer, or put my finger on the solution.

Yours confusedly,
Ophiolite


A Palm Pilot will be awarded to the first poster who supplies a convincing argument to any of the above questions. In this regard the judges indecision is final.
Click to expand...

I think most men should (if not doing so already) aquire the ability to be ambidecxtrous ('scuse dodgy spelling...typing with just one hand!) in this regard, so as to avoid repetative strain syndrome.
 
Buddha1 said:
No you're confused. Heterosexuals are wimps. In fact some of them (I'd say many) are faggots.
Click to expand...

Your a total faggot, yet your also a homo.


Buddha1 said:
Gays are much better off. They accept and wear their femininity with pride. They don't hide it behind phoney manhood artificially created by the society.
Click to expand...

Just because your gay doesnt make you feminine, some the hardest, craziest motherfuckers in the world are gay. Theres a bloke who lives down the same street as me whos more 'bloke' like than most blokes i know,a regular at the local, and a insane scrapper. Quite a weird one...anyway...

Your gay if you like taking up the pooter, femininity doesnt come into it you poor, confused, self-contradicting pooter pusher.
 
Roman said:
Ach, I meant that, according to your new labels, heterosexuals are the gay fags. You know, happy and shit. Defintiltey not lumberjacks, construction men or cowboys.
Click to expand...
Truth is not afraid of examination.

true Heterosexuals are definitely queers. But in a positive sense.
 
john smith said:
Your a total faggot, yet your also a homo.
Click to expand...
At least I'm not a suppressed one! And I'm not hiding anything!

john smith said:
Just because your gay doesnt make you feminine, some the hardest, craziest motherfuckers in the world are gay. Theres a bloke who lives down the same street as me whos more 'bloke' like than most blokes i know,a regular at the local, and a insane scrapper. Quite a weird one...anyway...

Your gay if you like taking up the pooter, femininity doesnt come into it you poor, confused, self-contradicting pooter pusher.
Click to expand...
Just go down that street and tell that 'bloke' that!

I guess I'm not gay according to your definition either, because I don't like taking up the pooter.

It's surprising how you use the 'fem' abuses for gay men on one hand and then claim that they are masculine?

Your society can club apples and oranges as one and the same thing, but that doesn't make them the same!
 
john smith said:
Your gay if you like taking up the pooter, femininity doesnt come into it you poor, confused, self-contradicting pooter pusher.
Click to expand...

Is it nice to be so simple-minded?
 
Dear Buddha,

I asked a question a few days ago that you must not have felt like responding to.

Having girlfriends: is it shameful because it's "unmasculine" or is it partly because you come from a very conservative and religious-oriented society?
 
Giambattista said:
Dear Buddha,

I asked a question a few days ago that you must not have felt like responding to.

Having girlfriends: is it shameful because it's "unmasculine" or is it partly because you come from a very conservative and religious-oriented society?
Click to expand...
My religion doesn't say anything about how people must run their physical life --- that includes the sexual arena.

BUt all traditional societies regulated the sexual behaviour of people and decided what is acceptable and what is not. The basic motive was clear --- to make the marriage insitution survive.

Male-female sex was institutionalised as a pressure on men in order to bind them into marriage. Giving it huge social powers and glorification was inevitable. But what was good was that this power was not unbridled.

While on one hand the society forced men to prove their manhood by having sex with women, on the other hand they made sure that there were restrictions on male-female sex outside of marriage. There were also restrictions on a display of male-female sexual emotions in public --- even if the two were married. If a man and woman held hands in public, the woman would be thought of as a 'whore', while the man would be deemed a rogue.

So you see, these restrictions had a valid purpose.
 
O.K so the trhead that was discussing 95% of men have a sexual feeling with men has been locked.

Well, I am not going to make a lot of hue and cry about it, I can put my time to much better use. But I'll definitely make efforts to expose sciforums as a forum that suppresses voices that it does not agree with --- when it can not deal with it with logic and science.

Goofy or whoever it was (Tristan?) exercised his power arbitrarily --- why?

Because some (many) sciforum members had complained? What was the reason to complain? That the discussion has come down? So if a number of people gang up to sabotage a sincere discussion, the way to deal with it is to stop the discussion or to reign in the trollers?

Tristan decided to stop the discussion. Does it smack of the last resort that your free society has to shut up the voice of reason.

It speaks for itself.

You have destroyed the credibility of sciforums as an open and fair place to discuss.

I'd also like to respond here to a few irresponsible points raised in thread by Goofy --- as a moderator he should have been more unbiased.
 
Goofy said:
Nothing has been "proven".

Your data suggests only that if we see homosexuality in other mammals we might see it wild humans as well.
Click to expand...

You have degraded your position as a moderator by taking sides so arbitrarily on a controversial topic.

In a true democracy, you don't decide a matter just by the majority. If the majority can force down the reasonable voice of the minority it is not a democracy neither a free society.

When You say nothing is proven, you have on purpose ignored the horde of evidences from the western sources that I have provided of univeral male sexual need for men amongst the humans.

These included the following:

1. A media report from the west about the widespread sexual relationships amongst men in Afghanistan.

2. Seferal quotes from important and well known western scientists, psychologists, philosophers, and researchers that testify that male sexual need for men is a universal phenomenon amongst men.

3. A published paper from the west about pre 1960 era when sex between men was extremely common, almost 100%. The paper was titled "Male homosexuality --- from commonality to rarity"

When you proncounced your decision before scuttling a voice you don't like, you failed to answer the above evidences that prove beyond doubt that even till this date, there are socieities where same sex relationships are the rule rather than the exception.

Perhaps you would now delete this post, in order to remove your blot.
 
Goofy said:
This topic appears to have wound down. Can anyone suggest a reason why it should remain open?
Click to expand...
So how do you decide if a discussion has come down.

If I and some others go and harass someone discussing a topic will you decide that the discussion has come down.

Your sharing in the mocking of the topic together with Spuriousmonkey shows amply that you are hand in glove with that troll.

The topic was going strong. There were people opposing it, but still discussing it. Apart from Spuriousmonkey and Ophiolite, noone acted in any manner that would say that this was a totally proper discussion.

There were many points raised by ToR to which I raised some more. Ditto with Redarmy.

Ophiolite and Spuriousmonkey on the other hand have been harrassing me for the past one year, hooting, ridiculing and calling names. Both of them clearly said that they did not want young people to be influenced by such information.

So you sympathise with the sabotiers who acted like terrorists. Does that behove you as a moderator?

I wanted to bring in several other evidences --- but you throttled my voice.

You have degraded Sciforums. If the authorities of sciforums really care about their forum they should take immediate steps. Aren't there any rules for the moderators?
 
Leopold said:
buddha will never stop crying if the evil mods stifled his freedom of speech
Click to expand...
Well, it seems you have won afterall, if not through a discussion and evidences then by throttling my voice.

That says a lot about your society, its freedom and fairness. The only difference from an Islamic society is that the latter doesn't have any qualms of being open and fair.
 
retard said:
Whenever I come across an individual who defines himself by his or her sexuality or his or her nationality or his or her spirituality, I know that I’m in the presence of an imbecile.
Click to expand...

To all the members of sciforums:

All I had done was bring in a topic that many did not like. But I was following the rules, I brought in evidences in all sincerity and I foolishly hoped that people will either provide evidences against my contentions or will accept them as true.

Instead I got harrassed, abused, hooted at, ridiculed even threatened with life. I complained with the moderators several times. Not much happened. I was left with dealing with the saboteurs myself. I tried to ignore them, fight with them, try to bring reason to them.......and somehow managed to continue my discussion.

There were some very good responses from people, both who supported me and opposed me. I have learnt a lot since I started these topics.

So I still made my point, and the opposition who is apparently strong decided enough was enough. It didn't take long for it to lock the thread. I am punished for proving a topic that the west would rather push under the carpet.

While the real culprits now roam around proudly.
 
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey said:
Sexually reproduction in plants is covered in all schools in the western world as a basic topic.
Click to expand...
To be sure I studied that too.

But I have my own opinion about that, at least in this context which I thought I'll bring up during the discussion.

To me the whole problem is becuase the west sees sex and reproduction as one and the same thing. I don't think plants fuck each other in the same way that animals do. If I am not wrong isn't the male and female pollen exist on the same tree?

Goofy feels it is a valid counter argument to bring in plants when we are discussing mammals/ humans. Well, you can't argue with the moderator, can you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top