[R.M. Schultz]That Axis History Forum Guy Again...

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

1] Psychology is the least rigorous of the sciences. Things that were once considered neurotic are not accepted, while simple vices (like gluttony) have been re-conceptualized as “diseases.” Freud, the putative founder of the “science,” is now completely discredited. If there is anything that we can actually say about psychology it’s that virtually none of its claims can be verified by reproducible experiment.

Well, you are right in that it's not as rigorous as the other sciences. However, you are indeed incorrect about Freund. While many of his ideas were discredited, he has made many valuable contributions to the field of abnormal psychology.

There is still a lot of contribution that was not discredited, but none of this has to do with his sexual development concepts, which were the primary target of discrediting.

As well, there is much about psychology that can be reproduced, not in a lab experiment, no, but they can reproduce the experiment as outlined in the peer reviewed journals of say, Abnormal Psychology. Have you actually read a real journal other than popular psychology magazines? They give strict procedures one has to follow for many of their studies if one wants to duplicate it. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Some psychologists don't do this; some are bullshit. That's hardly the majority of legitimate psychologists.

I actually find that I can stand behind my first statement: that the most important factor in sexuality is not “orientation” but rather dominance. I person of great “ego strength” (as the current jargon would call it) is free to use there sexuality as they wish, while a passive personality type is doomed to become the slave of their desires. I would contend that what is “innate” is dominance or lack thereof.

And what evidence, studies do you have to show it's about "dominance?" You seem to think asserting something like that constitutes evidence. No one cares if you think orientation is not the issue, but rather dominance.

What's this "ego strength" nonense as well? Are you just making shit up? There's no reason to think homosexuality has anything to do with passives being thrust aside by dominants.

Of course dominance is an innate quality.l That means all of jack shit to homosexuality, though. You can have a passive homosexual who has never been "enslaved" to another.

2] The experience I see around me is against it. I cannot begin to count the number of women I have known who have gone through lesbian periods absolutely convinced that they will never love a man again only to settle down with a husband and have some kids. Similarly, every dominant self-identified homosexual that I have met was actually bisexual with at lease some successful experience of women, while I have never met a passive homosexual who has been in a genuinely heterosexual relationship with a woman. I can also think of several cases of “horizontal recruiting” where a really good lover has been able to “change” the orientation of someone.

"I reject asctual peer reviewed studies because some people in the past have been wrong and my anecdotal experiences tell me they are wrong."

YOu do know that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, right? I can make up a story like yours too if you want, but put a different spin on it. It's unverifiable.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Misleading accusation #2: That I am ignorant of “scientific” research that “proves” homosexuality to be innate.

No one said that homosexuality was "proven" to be innate. However, research suggests a biological determinant is more probable than an environmental one. You need to learn to read.

I am fully aware of the much hyped idea that it is innate and I find three reasons for rejecting it:

1] Psychology is the least rigorous of the sciences. Things that were once considered neurotic are not accepted, while simple vices (like gluttony) have been re-conceptualized as “diseases.” Freud, the putative founder of the “science,” is now completely discredited. If there is anything that we can actually say about psychology it’s that virtually none of its claims can be verified by reproducible experiment.

You're quite outdated. Psychology is not the leading branch of science in sexual orientation research. Neuroendocrine studies suggest that hormone levels in the 2rd trimester of fetal development as well as brain structures are probable determinants of sexual orientation. The neurological response of gay men to male pheromones also point to a biological origin. To be quite frank, you have demonstrated a high level of ignorance on this matter, whether you believe it or not.

[The Spartan]

So... rather than actually responding to the points within the article I posted you instead attempt to claim that your personal experiences take precedence over the results of a scientific study without demonstrating any flaws within said study's methodolgies or conclusions, citing the wrong goddamn field and throwing in another ad hominem to boot?

Though I have to admit the phrase "suited my purpose" in regards to your sexuality does give me pause. It almost sounds as though you were predating upon your partners, using them for your "purpose" but I don't want to leap to conclusions so perhaps you'd care to be a little more clear?

Also, this:

The subject under discussion was Ernst Röhm, who was heterosexual before the Great War, introduced to homoeroticism shortly thereafter, and homosexual ever afterwards. When exactly was he bisexual? It seems to me that there was no time in his life when he either desired or coupled with both women and men; first it was the one, then the other.

And why does he have to like both at the same time in order to be classified as bisexual? This is a needless restriction of the definition. To make an analogy: I've gone through periods of preferring redheads to brunettes and vice versa; but that doesn't mean I didn't like both at any given time, only that I had a preference that changed back and forth over time. Further, there is a unneccesary but powerful social stigma applied to homosexuals, did it ever occur to you that he may have been completely homosexual, just in denial? Rather than being genuinely bisexual as you claim?

[Medic]

As The Spartan noted most strongly, the meat of your response on the issue in question ascribed to us the wrong god damned field in determining sexual orientation.

If it weren't for the fact that I honestly believe this inerrancy due to sheer ignorance or outright stupidity, it'd be a strawman.

Most of your points have been thoroughly fucked already, so some of the tangential ones people don't have the time for...

Misleading accusation #4: That I spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuality

In the most recent thread, the subject under discussion was Ernst Röhm, and homosexual, so it would naturally follow that the subject would come up.

Much more suspicious was a thread on Nazi science and medicine where, out of the blue, BO brought up homosexuality:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=6021

My point in that discussion was that the Nazi régime, however scientifically advanced they were, suffered from all the talent lost due to their persecution of Jews and other groups. BO then comes in with the accusation that —somehow— the British were just as bad because (years after the war) they had convicted Allan Turing (whose name BO continually misspells as “Turin”) on a homosexuality charge.

Check it out — I’m not the one with an agenda.

And I would certainly think implimenting racist policies in Britain would have a detrimental effect on art and science too; many Indians and Oriental people work as doctors or scientists in Britain.

In his other comments he came nowhere close to implying either in regards to human rights excesses or in detriments to science that Britain was worse than Germany. Though Germany persecuted more minorities -- to include gays, something you, FAG, don't recognize because of the tenuous claim that it's behavorial and not genetic -- they still made great scientific progress in the war. Russians and Americans scrambling to horde rocket research and jet engine research is the proof in the pudding. Big Orange only pointed out that no matter where it happened, criminalizing, killing or marginalizing gays and minorities was wrong.

But the claim you made on that board is classic:

Here you are comparing apples to oranges. It is completely disingenuous to equate Jews and homosexuals as “despised minority groups” since Jewishness is genetic and sodomy is a behavior. Alan Turing was punished for what he did while the Jewish victims of Nazism were persecuted for who they were and the moral difference between these is simply incalculable. Furthermore, Turing was convicted in a court of law after due process under laws passed by democratic methods, while the Nazi’s overturned the rule of law completely. However misguided the prosecution of Turing might have been, regulation of behavior is well within the purview of state power in a democratically elected government. Comparing prosecutions under laws that now seem quaint and out of date (yet were enacted democratically) to genocide verges on moral bankruptcy.

He points out that Britain was no saint because they did have isolated instances of persecuting minorities not that it was worse than the Nazi excesses. It all boils down to an appeal-to-motive against Big Orange, but it's worth pointing out your blatant disregard over minority rights because you don't believe homosexuals constitute one.

It's at this point people will start piling on top of you because in addition to being a less-than-common-moron -- who patiently waited 3 weeks just to open himself to direct and unrelenting criticism of his ignorance -- you're a common bigot.

[Wyrm]

Let me point out, Mr. Schultz, that you have fallen right into the SDN's clever trap. You registered to this BBS, waited three weeks for the mods to clear you, and post only to this thread, and your very first post is to whine like a little bitch about Big Orange's calling you names. You thus set yourself up with a so-called "style over substance" fallacy. The use of this fallacy brands you as the whiny little shitstain you are, and thus your coming here proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are exactly the kind of blubbering pussy that Big Orange has portrayed you.

Now, the people on this thread get to have fun. At your expense, I'm afraid.

Shame on you! <- Hunny, I shrunk the GIANT TEXT -Wyrm

What kind of cowards say such things behind a man’s back? What would your mothers think of such behavior? This is just about the most spineless, reprehensible thing that I have ever seen on the internet. What kind of losers are you?

Grow the fuck up, you soiled tampon. People will talk behind your back. Grow a skin.

My point in that discussion was that the Nazi régime, however scientifically advanced they were, suffered from all the talent lost due to their persecution of Jews and other groups. BO then comes in with the accusation that —somehow— the British were just as bad because (years after the war) they had convicted Allan Turing (whose name BO continually misspells as “Turin”) on a homosexuality charge.

The British were wrong to charge Turing with a homosexuality charge; it's the same shit as the Nazis were shoveling. And when I say the same shit, I do mean the same shit. Do you think that anti-Semetism was a flaw of only the Nazis? Fuck no! Anti-Semites were in every country back then, a blind eye turned to them if not actively supported. It took the Holocaust and a look into the Nazi deathcamps to hammer into the heads of the world that anti-Sematism was causing humanity to lose its soul.

Will it take a Gay Holocaust to wake up little fuckstains like you?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Will it take a Gay Holocaust to wake up little fuckstains like you?

There already was one, but these morally-bankrupt bloodthirsty lowlife assholes can't orgasm properly without someone who's a member of whatever group they hate being tortured to death.

Stupidity such as FAG's deserves extreme measures taken against it, for it is the enabler of evil.

[Medic]

Will it take a Gay Holocaust to wake up little fuckstains like you?

There already was one, but these morally-bankrupt bloodthirsty lowlife assholes can't orgasm properly without someone who's a member of whatever group they hate being tortured to death.

Stupidity such as FAG's deserves extreme measures taken against it, for it is the enabler of evil.

As I noted in the SDN chat, it doesn't matter WHAT the enabler of bigotry is -- nationalism, religious indoctrination, or incomprehensible ideologies that marginalize homosexuality because it is a choice and not something inate, based on beliefs claiming orientation is purely a funciton of "dominance" or "super-ego" -- it has to be stamped out regardless.

I certainly don't look upon FAG any better than I would a self-described fundamentalist [moron] or neo-Nazi.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Will it take a Gay Holocaust to wake up little fuckstains like you?

There already was one, but these morally-bankrupt bloodthirsty lowlife assholes can't orgasm properly without someone who's a member of whatever group they hate being tortured to death.

Stupidity such as FAG's deserves extreme measures taken against it, for it is the enabler of evil.

As I noted in the SDN chat, it doesn't matter WHAT the enabler of bigotry is -- nationalism, religious indoctrination, or incomprehensible ideologies that marginalize homosexuality because it is a choice and not something innate, based on beliefs claiming orientation is purely a function of "dominance" or "super-ego" -- it has to be stamped out regardless.

I certainly don't look upon FAG any better than I would a self-described fundamentalist [moron] or neo-Nazi.

Precisely. Any enabler of hate should be eliminated from the Human Experience, or, failing that, marginalized as much as possible until it's rendered little more than a laughingstoch by even a common man.

[Yoda]

And what is with all this name calling? My son is only thirteen and even he can carry on a conversation for more than five minutes without calling someone an infantile name or making a fart joke. Are any of you adults?

Yes, some of us are. I'm not, in fact I'm the same as your son, the main difference being that I know what Style over substance means.

[Yoda]

In the above post I meant to say "I'm the same age as your son".

Aside from that, it's quite ironic that Chrisians say sex is "bad" and yet spend almost as much time thinking about it as everyone else.

[Ghost Rider]

Yoda, either particpate, or don't fucking post.

As for RM...you're an idiot because you haven't refuted shit other then literally make a bunch of baseless yabbering. So are you going to actually show up Big Orange or are you going to prove that I was right that all you do blither?

[K. A. Pital]

Summing up.

Blah blah blah

You employed two arguments from anecdotal evidence - "personal experience" and "experience around him", and a weak attack at psychology (as if you have a fucking clue about psychology, equating it with Freudian psychoanalysis which was indeed discredited by psychologists, moron).

Then you totally disregard psychology, because...? No evidence is presented whatsoever. Not a single shred of credible evidence, not a shred of scientific evidence to support your claims - just attacks at a scientific study of the genetic nature of homosexualism.

And another nazi excuse: "Nazis let those who could fuck a girl go". That's not lame. That's just super-lame, especially given that you have produced no studies whatsoever to prove homosexualism is not determined by genetic traits.

[Surlethe]

Shame on you!

What kind of cowards say such things behind a man’s back? What would your mothers think of such behavior? This is just about the most spineless, reprehensible thing that I have ever seen on the internet. What kind of losers are you?

How the everlasting fuck is "you're full of shit" an insult? It's nothing more than a salty claim about your position. You want an insult, you pig? I'll give you an insult, you shiteating excuse for a human being. Your sense of morality is so fucking pathetic, a chimpanzee wouldn't touch it, you dried cuntstain. You're a pathetic retarded loser, and I'm ashamed to be even responding to you because my intelligence drops by association, you sick son of a whore. Those are insults, you cretinous mass, not this mild "you're full of shit".

And you know what? I'm willing to bet good money you're going to completely ignore the substance of my post in order to whine about the insults.

I actually find that I can stand behind my first statement: that the most important factor in sexuality is not “orientation” but rather dominance. I person of great “ego strength” (as the current jargon would call it) is free to use there sexuality as they wish, while a passive personality type is doomed to become the slave of their desires. I would contend that what is “innate” is dominance or lack thereof.

Why don't you back this claim up with some evidence, you whiny shit?

1] Psychology is the least rigorous of the sciences. Things that were once considered neurotic are not accepted, while simple vices (like gluttony) have been re-conceptualized as “diseases.” Freud, the putative founder of the “science,” is now completely discredited. If there is anything that we can actually say about psychology it’s that virtually none of its claims can be verified by reproducible experiment.

Dismissing psychology based on historical changes and the reputation of the founder? By that logic, evolution's modern conclusions are false; and this leaves alone the fact that we're also talking about biology and chemisty in the determination that sexual orientation, not just psychology.

2] The experience I see around me is against it. I cannot begin to count the number of women I have known who have gone through lesbian periods absolutely convinced that they will never love a man again only to settle down with a husband and have some kids. Similarly, every dominant self-identified homosexual that I have met was actually bisexual with at lease some successful experience of women, while I have never met a passive homosexual who has been in a genuinely heterosexual relationship with a woman. I can also think of several cases of “horizontal recruiting” where a really good lover has been able to “change” the orientation of someone.

You think anecdotal evidence is any more rigorous than psychological studies? You're more retarded than I thought.

3] My personal experience is against it. I have had no trouble adapting to whatever form of sexuality I thought best suited my purpose at the time.

Oh, sure. And that conclusively disproves that homosexuality is innate how? It just concludes that you're bisexual, moron.

[Big Orange]

Jesus wept, I didn't expect this thread to suddenly come to this in my brief absence.

And RM Schultz's credibility has dramatically decreased if he went to so much trouble to follow me here and vainly carry on with his substandard argument about homosexuality being a "choice" (an argument that has been comprehensibly chopped down into tiny giblets and fed to the dogs).

[Big Orange]

You are a real jerk, you know that? You couldn't fight me with reason and facts on the civilized AHF so you came to this dung heap to fight me with calumny and inuendo.

I did try to argue with you with facts, but you waved these facts off as "junk science" and you do not seem to listen to reason.

(Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of slandering me behind my back?"

I did not "slander" you, I merely quoted you.

I'm having a fine time answering these opinionated jerks. If I do say so myself, I look very reasonable when compared to people who's best answer is to call me a "hatfucker" (whatever that is).

No you look very vulnerable and silly, R.M. Schultz...

[R.M. Schultz]

… hatfucker…

Now here’s a nice insult: “hatfucker.” What on earth does a “hatfucker” do? Does he fuck hats? (Think of how much lube that would take!) Does he fuck with his hat on? (I guess I’ve done that.) A Google search yields 483 responses and none of the ones I looked appear to offer a definition. Urban Dictionary is no help either.

It’s a popular word here on Stardestroyer however, as there are388 matches for “hatfucker” on this site.

Just for comparison’s sake I searched for “hatfucker” on the Axis History Forum only to come up empty handed. Similarly, while there are 3,342 listings for “fucker” on Stardestroyer, AHF yields only 32, and some of them are not even profanity. One is a request for a translation of “Katzelmacher”, four are requests by non-English speakers to clarify the usage of “mother fucker,” and several relate to Karl Fucker (a real person who authored several history books).

RM Schultz's credibility has dramatically decreased if he went to so much trouble to follow me here and vainly carry on with his substandard argument about homosexuality being a "choice" (an argument that has been comprehensibly chopped down into tiny giblets and fed to the dogs).

My credibility is decreased because I took umbrage at an underhanded attack upon my good name? Nonsense — your credibility is the one impugned by your cowardly abandonment of the AHF and resort to secret, sniping attacks upon a foe whom you thought could not respond.

Interesing ad hominem(s) thrown in with complete bullshit. (Oh no!! He called me a PC Liberal and a communist!!!!) Dumbass.

What are you talking about? I asked Big Orange if he were a liberal, and I commented on the communist origin of the phrase “horizontal recruiting.” Here you take umbrage at two words not directed at you, yet somehow I am thin skinned for reacting to sustained personal attacks. Such hypocrisy!

Furthermore — from a communist perspective, the homosexual lifestyle is a bourgeois deviation that will disappear of its own accord after the revolution, so that leaves you out, doesn’t it?

Furthermore: let me state categorically: I reject ad homium attacks. If you can cite any such attacks from me I will both withdraw them and formally apologize.

new study shows that gay men respond differently from straight men when exposed to a suspected sexual stimulus found in male sweat.

This is more likely a conditioned response, just as how wine drinkers might salivate at the smell of grapes while beer drinkers would be less likely to. I’ll bet if we could test pre-revolution Chinese mandarins they would have an hormonal response to bound feet and, by your logic, it would “prove” that a taste for mutilated appendages was “innate.”

Let’s clear the air here, shall we? I would like to state a few things that are really beyond debate:

• I have never called for, nor tried to make moral justification for, persecution of homosexuals or homoeroticism.

• Though I have tried to make a distinction between genocide and democide, I condemn both as profoundly immoral.

• I am not a “homophobe.” My two best friends are gay, I attend the International Mister Leather convention every year, I have always found men attractive, my son’s godmother is a lesbian — in short, I have never evinced any personal hostility towards homosexuals and I probably have more contact with them than most people.

• I am not a “self-hating bisexual.” I gave up bisexuality in order to get married and have children. Just as it would be unfair to question the motives of an heterosexual who chooses to live in a monogamous relationship, I think it unfair for you to question mine. Monogamy means giving up other sexual partners — male or female!

Having said that let me offer an excursus upon the idea that it is dominance, not orientation that is central to sexuality. I call this the Single Field Theory of Sexuality

The first thing I think we should keep in mind is that the nature/nurture debate has been going on for thousands of years and is not likely to be decided anytime soon. We should also note that I am making no claims that dominance or passivity is innate, just that it is the determinant.

The next thing we must keep in mind is that an hypothesis claims not truthfulness, but usefulness. The question we must always ask is: does it have predictive value? In light of this I would ask you to try an experiment. Go to a gay bar (not some piano bar, but a real hard-core leather bar) and ask the boys if they are Top or Bottom. The young ones will say they take both roles (the uncertainty of youth), but once a man is past twenty-five he is almost certainly one or the other.

Bottoms outnumber tops by a factor of five to one. (This is not just my estimate, it comes from Larry Townsend’s “The Leatherman’s Handbook.”)

And guess what? Pretty soon you can sort them out without asking. You can sense the ego-strength of the Tops, you can see the deference they are given, and you can feel right away that they are men of substance. And then ask the Tops: “Have you ever done women?” They probably have and, if they are really honest with you, they will tell you that they prefer men because the sex is better. By this they mean, not that they are not attracted to women, but that men can be relied upon to want sex, be orgasmic, and not get caught up quickly in emotional entanglements. Then ask them if they have a fetish. . [By “fetish” I mean a sexual practice that one must perform for satisfaction. A sexual practice that merely appeals to you, but is not necessary, is just a “kink.”] Odds are they don’t, they just play along with what the Bottom wants.

Similarly, if you talk to Bottoms you will find that they almost all have fetishes. I will even postulate a corollary rule to my Single Field Theory: the more passive someone is, the narrower their field of sexual desire is. Proof of this can be found in the simple fact that heterosexual masochists must usually pay to get a good beating.

If you begin to look at your homosexual friends from the perspective of Top and Bottom, very quickly you will find that this gives you a tremendous way of analyzing the whole of their personalities. The method proves itself by use.

Similarly, most Heterosexual relationships work best when the man is more dominant that the woman, but not so much more dominant that he will become bored with her or dominate her into such an abject submission as to obliterate her personality. (This has everything to do with the penetrative nature of the sex act and little to do with the supposed “patriarchal” nature of our civilization.) Again, using the paradigm of Top and Bottom, I invite you to think of all the couples you have known over the years and to see that the ones that are “well matched” are close in terms of dominance, yet with the man predominating. Use this method of analysis at the next wedding you go to and predict how long the marriage will last: you will find it to be a much better predictor than shared interests, or similarity of personality type.

The Single Field Theory also explains why there are huge numbers of gays insisting that they were “born gay.” The math is simple: 80% or more of gays are bottoms that cannot fundamentally alter any aspect of their lives, so of course they would claim to be innately gay!

The “Homosexuality Is Innate Theory” cannot be used to explain my experience, of the experience of myriads of Tops who make their sexuality into what they want, not what a supposedly immutable nature has imposed.

[SirNitram]

It’s a popular word here on Stardestroyer however, as there are388 matches for “hatfucker” on this site.

388 out of 2092502 possible articles... Let's just throw that into an equation to see how 'popular' it is... It's just division after all.

You didn't flunk division, did you?

1.8e-4.

Not many posts have 'Hatfucker' in them. Fucker? 3,342 out of 2092502 possible articles results in...

0.00159.

Yes, less than a fifth of a percent of the posts have 'Fucker'.

Less than a fifth of a percent.

This says so much about you, really.

[Darth Wong]

It’s a popular word here on Stardestroyer however, as there are388 matches for “hatfucker” on this site.

Just for comparison’s sake I searched for “hatfucker” on the Axis History Forum only to come up empty handed.

Wow, the Nazi-obsessed people use fewer naughty words than we do. +5 roll for moral superiority!!

[Ryushikaze]

So, I see a lot of claims, and a lot of attempts at style, but no actual substance. Evidence boy, evidence. Try finding evidence for what you claim, instead of saying what amounts to "ask anyone".

Scientists are finding more and more evidence that sexual preference is biological. Now, in bisexuals, it's not exactly fixed, which more than accounts for the 'switch hitters'.

I also find it interesting that your hypothesis completely ignores female homosexuals, who generally have different relationship roles and cannot be easily shoehorned into your laughable dom/sub dichotomy.

[Darth Wong]

I love the way he thinks he can just make up his own theory of sexuality with no evidence, no studies, nothing except his own "personal experience" to back it up. Why don't we all do that? Let's create the "single field theory of sexual inadequacy to explain the lifestyle choice of people who post on Axis History forums", and then challenge others to disprove it.

[Lord Zentei]

Wow. I hadn't noticed this abortion of a thread before now. Good grief.

Misleading accusation #2: That I am ignorant of “scientific” research that “proves” homosexuality to be innate.

No one said that homosexuality was "proven" to be innate. However, research suggests a biological determinant is more probable than an environmental one. You need to learn to read.

To be quite frank, apart from the fact that R.M. Schultz has not provided a shred of evidence that homosexuality is not more innate than caused by environmental factors beyond anecdote and his own worthless opinion, I have to say that simply by engaging in this debate on these terms is to give him more leeway than he deserves. Here's why:

IT MATTERS NOT ONE IOTA WHETHER HOMOSEXUALITY IS INNATE OR NOT!

Seriously, what goddamn difference does it make? Even assuming that it is a "lifestyle choice" why should it be disparaged, since it harms no-one?

My credibility is decreased because I took umbrage at an underhanded attack upon my good name?

Your what, now?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

What kind of retarded argument is this? So your evidence for your claims relies entirely on us to do the research for you?

Schultz, in reference to debating rule 6, I request that you provide evidence for the following claims you have made implicitly or explicitly:

1.) The idea that dominance is the primary determinant of one's sexuality.

Having said that let me offer an excursus upon the idea that it is dominance, not orientation that is central to sexuality.

2.) Versatiles beyond the age of 25 do not exist.

The young ones will say they take both roles (the uncertainty of youth), but once a man is past twenty-five he is almost certainly one or the other.

3.) That the primary motivator for 'Tops' to have sex with men is not sexual attraction to men.

And then ask the Tops: “Have you ever done women?” They probably have and, if they are really honest with you, they will tell you that they prefer men because the sex is better. By this they mean, not that they are not attracted to women, but that men can be relied upon to want sex, be orgasmic, and not get caught up quickly in emotional entanglements.

4.) Bottoms have more fetishes than Tops.

Similarly, if you talk to Bottoms you will find that they almost all have fetishes. Proof of this can be found in the simple fact that heterosexual masochists must usually pay to get a good beating. <-- Non-sequitur. Heterosexual masochists have little to do with homosexual bottoms.

5.) Passiveness directly correlates with one's field of sexual desire.

I will even postulate a corollary rule to my Single Field Theory: the more passive someone is, the narrower their field of sexual desire is.

The bottom line: You have no evidence. Just claims. In the absence of evidence, your theory remains inferior to others that do have evidence to bolster them.

[Morilore]

My credibility is decreased because I took umbrage at an underhanded attack upon my good name? Nonsense — your credibility is the one impugned by your cowardly abandonment of the AHF and resort to secret, sniping attacks upon a foe whom you thought could not respond.

He wasn't sniping, and insofar as he was he was flamed for it. He was either trying to get this board to debate you for him, or he was showing off ala "Look, I'm debating a moron! Accept me!" - for which he was also flamed.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

… hatfucker…

Now here’s a nice insult: “hatfucker.” What on earth does a “hatfucker” do? Does he fuck hats? (Think of how much lube that would take!) Does he fuck with his hat on? (I guess I’ve done that.) A Google search yields 483 responses and none of the ones I looked appear to offer a definition. Urban Dictionary is no help either.

It’s a popular word here on Stardestroyer however, as there are388 matches for “hatfucker” on this site.

Just for comparison’s sake I searched for “hatfucker” on the Axis History Forum only to come up empty handed. Similarly, while there are 3,342 listings for “fucker” on Stardestroyer, AHF yields only 32, and some of them are not even profanity. One is a request for a translation of “Katzelmacher”, four are requests by non-English speakers to clarify the usage of “mother fucker,” and several relate to Karl Fucker (a real person who authored several history books).

LOL Chewbacca Defense for t3h win!!

I will let you know I'll be accepting your concession on all points, due as of yesterday. Any complaints you may have are to be addressed to my sword [nsfw].

[The Spartan]

Interesing ad hominem(s) thrown in with complete bullshit. (Oh no!! He called me a PC Liberal and a communist!!!!) Dumbass.

What are you talking about? I asked Big Orange if he were a liberal, and I commented on the communist origin of the phrase “horizontal recruiting.” Here you take umbrage at two words not directed at you, yet somehow I am thin skinned for reacting to sustained personal attacks. Such hypocrisy!

Directed at me or him the context in which you use the term liberal is clearly meant as an insult and ad hominem. By dismissing the arguments as "liberal propaganda," or some similar line of thinking, you engage in the ad hominem fallacy. Further, by using the reference to Communism in the manner in which you do, you subtly invoke a connection between the Scary Reds and us/him/whoever, thus engaging in a second ad hominem.

Furthermore — from a communist perspective, the homosexual lifestyle is a bourgeois deviation that will disappear of its own accord after the revolution, so that leaves you out, doesn’t it?

Disappear? Or be disappeared? And why the hell should I give a flying fuck what the communist perspective is on homosexuality?

Furthermore: let me state categorically: I reject ad homium attacks. If you can cite any such attacks from me I will both withdraw them and formally apologize.

See above.

new study shows that gay men respond differently from straight men when exposed to a suspected sexual stimulus found in male sweat.

This is more likely a conditioned response, just as how wine drinkers might salivate at the smell of grapes while beer drinkers would be less likely to. I’ll bet if we could test pre-revolution Chinese mandarins they would have an hormonal response to bound feet and, by your logic, it would “prove” that a taste for mutilated appendages was “innate.”

And your basis for this would be what?

• I have never called for, nor tried to make moral justification for, persecution of homosexuals or homoeroticism.

Good to know.

• Though I have tried to make a distinction between genocide and democide, I condemn both as profoundly immoral.

And yet try to pass one of as less bad than the other because of your fallacious approach to homosexuality and your assumption that it is a choice. To say nothing of your absurd views on sexuality in general.

• I am not a “homophobe.” My two best friends are gay, I attend the International Mister Leather convention every year, I have always found men attractive, my son’s godmother is a lesbian — in short, I have never evinced any personal hostility towards homosexuals and I probably have more contact with them than most people.

And? Therefore?

• I am not a “self-hating bisexual.” I gave up bisexuality in order to get married and have children. Just as it would be unfair to question the motives of an heterosexual who chooses to live in a monogamous relationship, I think it unfair for you to question mine. Monogamy means giving up other sexual partners — male or female!

You're the one that used the phrase "suited my purpose." And since my question in that regard had to do with your past sexual experiences relating to said phrase, I see no refutation in the definition of monogamy or your current circumstances.

*snip voluminous bullshit*

I repeat: So... rather than actually responding to the points within the article I posted you instead attempt to claim that your personal experiences take precedence over the results of a scientific study without demonstrating any flaws within said study's methodolgies or conclusions?