Gay Cure MERGED

Heterosexual women will have difficulty in having relationships with women, even before having sexual contact with men. Because that's what heterosexuality is.

No?

 

Well yeah, that too.

 

Baja_1000' I understand you now and I agree with you. Regardless if you agree with war or not. Many straight males idolize war heros. These war heros are thought of as the ideal of masculinity and therefore the opposite of gay, by certain people. However, gay comes in all styles and colors, there are gay war heros and gay macho men. The stereotypes don't talk of that.




Erasamus70: Even in the 30s (before we needed a scientist to publish a paper) my Grandfathers generation could clearly see smokers were coughing, couldnt keep up with teammates and so on.

Cigarettes were marketed by doctors, who did testimonials in the 1940's and 50s to prove that smoking Camel Cigarettes was beneficial to your "T zone", your taste zone. You seem to draw alot of information from these types of out-dated studies. you need to buy an updated encyclopedia.

.

 

I m glad you understood the point i was trying to establish, few here got the clue . and others who hardly read any history are prob scraching they'r head. or thought i was trying to tie gay with Nazis or others.

 

The rumor is that although sex was forbidden in Buddhist monastic code, he “interpreted this” as only pertaining to "heterosexual love" not intended to forbid getting it on with cute, baby soft, shaved, oiled up, impressionable young "grasshoppers".
And the reasoning the samurai used to explain why they didn't like having sex with women were no different than the reasoning for the Nazi or for the Greeks.
In a nutshell their argument was this, women have no use except for birthing children, they make for shitty partners in combat because they can’t fight.
In the ranks of the samurai, taking on young male lovers was the thing to do. Although at 18 the relationships were ususally ended for the most part because at that time, it was believed that the boy had become a man at 18 and was old enough to take on his own young piece of man ass. But to me that sounds kinda like, by 18 these ass kicking pedophiles don’t have interest in you anymore because now they want to get themselves some new young man ass.

 

.

 

GBS - gay bowel syndrome I have been an RN for 35 year and have worked with lots of gay patents and fellow staff and I have never heard of GBS. Were did you get that. See below
GBS stands for
****** Group B Streptococcus (medical)


****** Guillain-Barre Syndrome


****** Great Big Sea


****** George Bernard Shaw


****** Glenbrook South (high school, Illinois)


***** Global Broadcast Service (NRO Operational Support Office)


***** General Bullshit


***** Global Business Services


***** Glowing Black Stone (gaming)


**** Global Broadcast System


**** Goizueta Business School (Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia)


**** Gross Budgetary Support


**** Gold Bauhinia Star (Hong Kong)


**** General Business Systems


**** Gros Bon Sens (French)


**** Gravity Based Structure


**** Global Broadcasting System


**** Ground-Based Sensor


**** Ground Based Sensor


**** Gooding Business Solutions, Ltd.


**** Global Broadcast Satellite


**** Ground-Based System


*** Grounding, Bonding, Shielding


*** Generic Benefit Scheduling (algorithm)


*** GameBoy Sound File


*** Guaranteed Bandwidth Scheduler


*** Group Battle Staff


*** Ground Beacon System


*** General Biasing Scheme


*** Great Basin Sage


*** Ghetto Beatdown Squad (website)


*** Graphical Business System


* Gainesville Bromeliad Society

 

It looks to me like you are dancing further and further away on each point to me but cheers to that I suppose.

There is nothing facetious about causing yourself stress and emotional distress when its unhelpful and unnecessary.
That IS the cause of our pain and emotional agony and is what leads to a pandoras box of trouble.
Far from getting away from the real question - that is taking it directly back to the main concern here.
What is helpful and what is unhealthy.

Obvious reasons I can believe that a man is intended to be sexually attracted to a women would be the physical body for starters.
Its penis and testicles along with the hips and buttocks are so perfectly designed for a vagina, for thrusting inside a vagina and for deseminating sperm into the vagina that we can make no mistakes there.
Ok.
So, its not even near surprising that I would go onto say that so too is the physiology of this man.
Its been mentioned before but if you have seen the 'Science of Love' or just studied this in Uni then you can see in amazement a whole fantastic mechanism for sexual relations with the opposite sex.
Its the physiological equal to the complexity of the physical bodies really.
All kinds of action goes on from the reasons for the man to look at breasts and why the male brain is meant to recognise Hip-to-Waist ratios.
Its amazing really.. down to why pupils will open and even more astonishing the hidden complexity behind 'Pheramones' which is still being discovered.
There is a whole 'science' on what smells are released and how the man can recognise the womans and vice-versa and how that can denote an ideal mate or not.

So, there is nowhere for you to wonder why I would believe that a male is 'just as easily' going to be intended to be born with a males body (genitals for procreating with a vagina) and yet has a unique physiology which is, for some reason, matching to another males physiology.

Instead, (and I think this is THE point) I see a problem when a man (or converse this for a woman) attempts to bend not just the body but the physiology as well.
Hmmm.. can you sorta 'make it work' and simulate, compensate, bend a little, lose a little and hold out all kinds of 'mind over matter' conditional training to pull it off?
Well, some people sure try!
I suggest this causes a great deal of emotional pain, awkwardness and is rarely successful.
But worse than that is what is not available to be had when a man meets a woman and all the physiological wonders begin to fire and play as nature intended them.

One thing that might be helpful would be a similar series of articles and programmes that explore this alledged 'science of sex' using homosexuals?
Could the same thing be pulled off?
The Vagina lubricates for the entrance of.. the other womans fingers?
The two men secrete pheramones which indicate that which one has the right genetic combination for successful procreation?
The 'gay man' produces sperm for... what reason again?
They are physiologically compelled to bond because its beneficial to them?

 

You only needed to google 'Gay Bowel Syndrome' and randomly select the most credible of the lot to realise that GBS was most definately a medical condition/term that was abandoned due to 'political incorrectness':

In 1976, a group of physicians in private proctologic practice in New York City coined the illness "Gay Bowel Syndrome" in reference to a constellation of gay male anorectal disorders. Through analysis of biomedical discourse and popular media, it is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned before it further lends itself to the formation of social policies and governing practices that seek to force gay male bodies into positions of social, cultural, and political subordination.

Im not an RN and I remember that term being used just 15 years ago and is still used today.

You are pretending to know about some studies or encyclopedias.
You are citing what you think is a real doctor paid to endorse a cigarette that provides flavour.
I have a Grandfather who is 90 years old and smoked until he was 35.
We just recently had a big discussion about this as he encouraged me to quit smoking.
What Im telling you stands regardless of what you 'heard once about something on a commercial'.
To put this in perspective - back in my Grandfathers day, women just did not smoke.
It was called a 'Vice'.
Vice = a 'wrongdoing'.

Im not sure how to take that.
Did you mean:
Heterosexual women will have difficulty in having relationships with men, even before having sexual contact with men. Because that's what heterosexuality is?

Nothing will be more wonderful, exciting, satisfying than when a woman finds her first love.
Its the stuff of dreams and is now and forever the most celebrated event of our lives and what young women around the world hope to find.
Most do and its wonderful.

 

Gosh, no, I actually DID mean: Heterosexual women will have difficulty in having relationships with women, even before having sexual contact with men. Because that's what heterosexuality is.
Because people are heterosexual before even having had sexual contact with anyone from the opposite sex.
In the same way that I think homosexuals are homosexual before having had sex with anyone of the same sex. A person's sexual orientation determines with which gender people are able to have (sexual and romantic) relationships. (I know that's not what you think, but that's what I think, which I am mentioning again in the hopes that you might at least understand what I posted, even if you don't agree)
I knew I was bisexual at age 17. I had my first sexual and romantic contacts at age 20 with a girl, at age 21 with a boy (still with him now).
I loved her wholeheartedly and selflessly, I love him wholeheartedly and selflessly. Equally valid relationships, which brought/bring me equal happiness and equal (di)stress.

 

Would you say that you have been born with a unique physiology which is able to respond to either sex?
Or
Would you entertain the very idea that you have a physiology which is in place and intended for interchange with a male but can be bent and modified to fit with a female?
I suggest the latter is true.
Like I said, I dont accept that the vagina is lubricating for the purpose of having fingers inserted.
I dont think you are releasing sexual pheramones so she can identify you as a healthy mate (which you could not mate, of course).

 

So according to you, guys should not finger their girlfriends/wives, women should not masturbate their boyfriends/husbands, no one should have oral sex, no one should have anal sex, no one should masturabte etc, no? I don't agree. I don't believe sex is purely about procreation. It's also about having fun, expressing affection, relieving tension, etc. Sex with my girlfriend was not stressful nor distressing, it made us happy because we were expressing our love and desire for eachother.
Furthermore, my girlfriend, before admitting to herself that she's a lesbian and before having any relationships with women, had several relationships with men. Emotionally she could not love them as anything else than brothers, having intercourse with them was so stressful and emotionally distressing, because it went against her nature, that she's still traumatised today. No such stress when having sex with women.
It bugs me that you don't see the emotional factor in all this, heterosexuality and homosexuality is not just about sexual attraction, it's about romantic attraction too.

As for the pheromones... Read this:

"Underarm odor may send very specific signals to potential mates ​

​

​

[font=DENPPF+Verdana]

(Philadelphia, May 9, 2005) -- Your nose, whether big or small, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, may play a big role in selecting your potential mate. According to scientists at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, one person's preference for another person's body odor depends in part upon the gender and sexual orientation of both sender and receiver.


​

"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," remarks Monell neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, PhD. Wysocki and Yolanda Martins, PhD co-directed the research effort. ​

In the study, 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and women were asked to indicate their preference for the odors of underarm sweat collected from 24 odor donors of varied gender and sexual orientation. Subjects made four comparisons, evaluating and chosing between odors from (i) heterosexual males versus gay males, (ii) heterosexual males versus heterosexual females, (iii) heterosexual females versus lesbian females, and (iv) gay males versus lesbian females. ​

Homosexual men and lesbian women had patterns of body odor preferences that were different from those of heterosexual men and women. In particular, gay men were strikingly different from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups. Gay men preferred odors from gay men and heterosexual women, whereas odors from gay men were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbian women. ​

Overall, odor preference was related to perceptions of odor pleasantness or unpleasantness, but not to odor intensity. Because the perceptual differences were related to odor quality, this suggests that at least some of the chemical attributes that contribute to human body odors are related to an individual's gender and sexual orientation. ​

Martins comments, "We need to understand how the biological mechanisms responsible for production of body odor differs in these groups of people, who are defined by gender and gender preference. We also need to identify the factors that lead men versus women and heterosexuals versus homosexuals to perceive body odor differently." ​

I emphasize: this was a blind study, none of the "smellers" knew whose smell they had under their noses.​

[/font]

 

so, if this is not more junk-science then you just might be finding evidence that people like you are genetically 'altered' in the womb to have a different type of physiology.
Now do you wonder why these physically different types of women (lesbians) are born with functioning wombs, ovaries, menstrual cycles etc?
So which is the flaw:
The useless wombs?
The gay physiology that negates the purpose of the womb?

See, no matter how this goes - something in the 'homosexual body' or 'mind' becomes useless.
This is why we say 'unnatural' in reference to homosexuality.
Even if its found that homosexual men are actually born this way then why are their testicles.
They are as some sort of tumours hanging around for no purpose other than to use up energy and get in the way.
Or
Maybe those testicles are what they are - for impregnating a female, for sexual relations with women.
In that case, the physiology and desires are just getting in the way and working against them.

 

Fine, you just keep emphasizing the procreational part of it, you'll never convince me... Who are you to say what is natural and what not? Why does sex have to be useful?

For example, take an infertile woman. Why would any guy want to have a relationship with her? He will never procreate. Procreationally it makes a lot more sense for him to find a fertile woman. But then again, if he loves her and desires her, he will stay with her, even if he can't procreate.

 

Its all viewed or expressed under the influence of rigid religious beliefs. Arguments with a bias towards faith as opposed to reason. To use Erasmus' words, true "junk science".

 

That may be how you interpret that research, that's not the way I interpret it. Why per se genetically different? Why in the womb?

 

sex is a cosmic joke... it is about play as everything is the universe is about play...

Lighten up, see past the illussion of seperation, and get the humor of the one consciousness... Then sex will be put in its proper place. Fudementalist that say it is only about procreation and hetrosexuality, and hedonists that put it on the pedestal of the ultimate pleasure, will both be revealed as views that promote attachment, prejudice, fear and suffering.

Once sex become a joke, it doesn't matter if one does it or not... it becomes about play... about service to the whole, about love... and light

 

To be honest, that isn't really the main concern. It only becomes one when you take it that way.

I know a lot of women who would disagree with you on that one.

Obviously men aren't having sex with each other for procreation's sake. Neither are women. As I already stated, there are other functions of sex than mating, and that is something which is not only restricted to human beings, so it would be strange to label it as somehow wrong, unhealthy, or whatever.

I personally don't understand why you are so unwilling to discuss matters of attraction that go beyond the directly sexual though. Many scientists do relate attraction to sex, but very rarely just to sex. Especially in a species such as our own, which tends towards monogamy and partnership (and I know how your mind works; you've probably already started typing out an assertion that monogamy is going down the toilet and that the world is overrun by single mothers. It's not, and it's not. So stop before you start.), there are other matters to consider even if you believe that most of our urges are essentially derived from our most primal instincts (which I'm not convinced you would; don't most Christians traditionally believe in the existence of a soul?). These other matters would include the desire to socialise, to protect and/or be protected, the establishment of hierarchy and so on. I'd be interested if you can offer any evidence that these drives are in some way unnatural, or that expressing them could be considered physically or psychologically unhealthy in and of itself.

 

Have you ever had sex for any reason other than procreation, sir?

It seems that you are fairly sure that sexual attraction is purely biological, and that any sexual attraction which does not have a biological function must therefore be deficient.

Let me ask you: do you feel the same way about love?

 

Forget it SC, Erasmus doesn't have any compelling arguments, and based on the stuff you quoted, he seems rather obsessed with sex.