`Does Racism/Sexism/Homophobia constitute a Personal Attack`

[Apech]

I would prefer to see no sexism, racism and homophobia on here at all. I would like to see any post which expresses any of these views deleted. That is my gut reaction to the question.

 

AND I also believe one of the best ways to combat these views is open debate. Political correctness has the effect of suppressing debate and drives received values and judgements underground where they simmer away with no hope of resolution.

 

So I would suggest we should have protocol which identifies a way of responding to such posts if they occur. A standard paragraph from the Mod Team asking the poster to rephrase or explain their point in other language and open challenge from other members.

 

This would be for hate crimes if you like.

 

The other category is, as happened recently someone posts links or quotes or ideas coming from other sites with a certain socio/political agenda. These exist whether we approve of them or like them or not. Wider than that I am sure you could find quotes from Buddhist sites which regard being gay as sexual misconduct. I know the Dalai Lama got into a pickle with this issue … since the medieval writings of Buddhist masters includes prohibitions against certain sorts of sexual activity i.e. oral, anal and with certain people. If this issue got any kind of resolution it was not by sweeping it under the carpet. It has to be out there and addressed in my opinion. So there must be people who are on TBs or may become members who read these texts and think that being gay is bad for you. If they never express this thought, or if they do and it is just stamped down then they will never get the opportunity to be enlightened by other posters on here.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Apech

[GrandmasterP]

It can be a subjective call.

What one thinks is OK may be totally unacceptable to someone else.

I'd say anything that emphatically excludes an identified gender from voluntary participation is unacceptable, others on TTB don't agree.

Best to let the mods call it on a case by case basis.

Edited February 12, 2013 by GrandmasterP

[liminal_luke]

edited out

Edited February 12, 2013 by liminal_luke

[zerostao]

edit out as well but dang luke i liked your style

Edited February 12, 2013 by zerostao

[liminal_luke]

Thanks Zerostao! Yeah, I was having fun and trying to be funny but when it comes down to it I don't want to hurt anybodies feelings so I thought better of it.

[zerostao]

you saw my post tho?

coz you had me in the spirit and ready to rrrrrrrrrrrrummmmmmmmble hahaha

[Vmarco]

Racism , homophobia and sexism do constitue personal attack . If we want peaceful coexistance -- these have no place for expression .

 

 

Racism , homophobia and sexism do constitue personal attack . If we want peaceful coexistance -- these have no place for expression .

 

 

"it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" J Krishnamurti

 

 

 

Racism , homophobia and sexism do constitue personal attack . If we want peaceful coexistance -- these have no place for expression .

[zerostao]

sime is very wise

[voidisyinyang]

http://fulllotusqigong.blogspot.com/2012/12/homosexuality-did-not-exist-in-original.html

Homosexuality did not exist in the original human culture for 90% of human history: Male ejaculation addiction is dopamine addiction creating violence and abusive addictive people

http://fulllotusqigong.blogspot.com/2013/01/realitysandwich-censors-my-comment-to.html

Reality Sandwich censors my comment to gay porn star Conner Habib about Eben Alexander and the NDE studies: No gays for 90% of human history -- here's the proof!!

Yeah I marched in the Stonewall 25 protest in NYC - the 25th anniversary of gay rights.

 

Of course I didn't mention this and my long term activism in collaboration with the gay community.

 

But I did mention how even scientists like E.O. Wilson claim that homosexuality is genetic.

 

Well if it is genetic then it's a fairly recent evolutionary trait since homosexuality did not exist for the original human culture -- the Bushmen -- who were also the original shamanic culture.

 

Yeah I know it's not P.C. to point this out. haha. I know no one talks about this -- but hey it's the empirical truth.

 

Is there a connection between the males of the Bushmen training to be shamans by training in celibacy and the sublimation of sex energy and the fact that the Bushmen did not even know about homosexuality much less denying it existed and anthropologists living with the Bushmen for years could find no evidence of homosexuality?

 

Yes I think there is a connection. Is there a connection between the Bushmen shamanic culture and Taoism qigong culture? Yeah I think there is a connection.

 

Yeah I know -- this doesn't fit into the progressive p.c. culture which I was deeply entrenched in for twenty years. haha. But in my opinion empirical truths trump political dogmas.

 

Qigong master Gary Clyman says he avoided females for two years. I suppose that could be considered sexist in traditional terms. Maybe not -- it might be debatable. I know there's a big essay out there attacking Tibetan Buddhism tantra training as inherently sexist. I think this is fundamentally based on a misunderstanding of the real dynamics of qigong training - if we consider qigong to be a term that is generalized.

 

Master Nan, Huai-chin criticized qigong as being too superificial and I agree -- the strict training for qigong requires not just physical celibacy from male ejaculation but also mind celibacy - and these are conditions very difficult to meet in today's commercialized world of "sex sells" mentality. So there are certain limitations in order to succeed in qigong training -- for example Master Nan, Huai-chin says how worldliness and spirituality can not be combined. This is really true -- unless someone wants to practice tantra for health and happiness for more superifical emotional healing. This is great to do for qigong and I think this is the limitation of qigong in modern progressive p.c. terms.

 

I think that's fine but I think we should at least be able to acknowledge and discuss the original culture from which qigong developed - the Bushmen culture - and the strict conditions that enabled men to go long periods without food and water -- through celibacy training that did not allow homosexuality.

 

 

"Interestingly, the Ju/wasi took no position on homosexuality, which seemed unknown. Researchers of other hunter-gatherer societies have also found an absence of homosexuality. Perhaps the Old Way, with its arduous lifestyle, does
not transmit this quality."

 

 

"Khoisan believe that it harms a girl terribly to be possessed before she is mature. It might even drive her mad. Khoisan have no real solution to this, as there are no prostitutes and only in a few bands are there promiscuous women. Homosexuality is not permitted either; the young men just have to get used to being tempted constantly but never gratified."

 

So those are quotes from anthrpologist Dr. Elizabeth Marshall Thomas who lived with the Bushmen for years in the 1950s.

 

Unfortunately her original book "The Harmless People" was attacked -- because of disbelief about what she was describing - a culture based on love and peaceful sharing through trance healing.

 

And so scientists have ignored her empirical evidence for no homosexuality in the original human culture. I've read the anthropology books on the Bushmen -- and I've read the academic research on homosexuality in Africa -- again there's no evidence there was homosexuality in the original human culture because that culture was also the basis for what later became qigong training.

 

I realize this is very difficult for people to consider -- as I mentioned - it got me banned from the "spiritual" website Realitysandwich -- apparently they thought I was being homophobic or sexist or whatever. haha. I didn't see the need to try to appeal to them that indeed I had great close interaction with the gay community - what's the point if the website is just being reactionary? haha.

 

I quote Dr. Gabor Mate that our society has serious addiction problems due to sexual abuse before puberty and so the brain becomes hard-wired into a dopamine-addiction personality. I have personally seen this intuitively through my qigong training - I can experience this hard-wired blockage in people -- so I am very glad to have Dr. Gabor Mate corroborate this through Western science since all I can rely on is my qigong training to make this claim.

 

 

What happens next, if you are male? You are having a terrific time with someone. Maybe you are breathing faster, your heart rate has increased. Gradually parts of your body are taking on a sympathetic [nervous system] tone....After awhile, most of your body is screaming sympathetic while, heroically, you are trying to hold onto the parasympathetic tone in that one last outpost as long as possible. Finally when you can't take it anymore, the parasympathetic shuts off at the penis, the sympathetic comes roaring on, and you ejaculate.

 

Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky, Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers (Holt Paperbacks, 2004), p. 124.

 

So it's not a moral condemnation -- someone who defines themselves by male ejaculation is activating their stress reactions and this goes against the reliance of the parasympathetic nervous system for meditation energy training.

 

There's a joke in kungfu movies about the castrated enuches having secret qigong powers - because they are castrated. But this of course goes against the truth of qigong training that it requires great jing energy to be stored up - the testosterone. If you don't have testicles then testosterone production is probably going to be greatly decreased. Another joke in the kungfu movies is that qigong powers come from "virgin kungfu" and so the normal martial arts just display nude female drawings to the "virgin" kungfu master and then the "virgin" kungfu master loses all his powers.

 

Now the details can be debated but the point is that qigong training relies on certain limitations of sublimated sexual energy and also celibate mind training.

 

Camille Paglia argues that Western civilization is inherently homosexual - read her tome Sexual Personae. I agree with her.

 

The West has lacked trance sublimation training -- real yoga training - and this problem goes back to Plato in the founding of Western philosophy.

 

I'm not really interested in focusing on the "problem" and why there is so much misyognist male violence in the modern world - why not just focus on the solution which is the shamanic training relying on sexual sublimation?

 

I see this effort to fixate on something that is not required in qigong training - to identify yourself by your ejaculations -- there is no need to even talk about it since it's not included in the real serious training.

 

But then again if people are not that serious and want to just practice qigong for minor tantric emotional healing for health and happiness - then there should be at least kareeza practice. In which case Mantak Chia and others point out how if the urine is foamy that means the sex fluids have not been really sublimated and how really it is the vagus nerve that needs to be activated.

[liminal_luke]

Pythagoreanfulllotus--

 

Say what?

 

You seem like a sincere guy, but I wonder what you were hoping readers--especially gay readers like me-- would get from that last posting. Did you imagine it would somehow be helpful? Perhaps I'm just not smart enough or spiritual enough or whatever but I have to admit I didn't really understand most of it. Mostly I'm left feeling beaten down. You say the original human culture and the bushmen weren't at all homosexual and the implication seems to be that therefore homosexuals are bad. Or maybe you think we were just messed up from early abuse or too much sympathetic nervous stimulation or something?

 

Like I say, you seem sincere and certainly knowledgeable. Perhaps you're just trying to pass on information and I'm taking it all wrong. There's my feelings and there's freedom of speech, and I think most people think freedom of speech is more important than ensuring my taobums experience is an emotionally nurturing one. So I for one aren't going to try to shut you down.

 

Let me just say though: damn this is hard. It's a weird feeling when people feel free to debate the legitamacy of something that feels so central to your very being.

[Apech]

Modern humans first appeared somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. For 90% of our history there is no record of how we lived or about sexuality. In all cultures since then where there are records there were gay people. So it would be very unlikely that it was not the same throughout those 200,000 years. Obviously in many cultures it was frowned up, outlawed and vilified. In fact it could be a taboo subject ... leaving the impression that it doesn't exist. So I am certain that pythagoreanfulllotus' first statement is false.

[voidisyinyang]

Modern humans first appeared somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. For 90% of our history there is no record of how we lived or about sexuality. In all cultures since then where there are records there were gay people. So it would be very unlikely that it was not the same throughout those 200,000 years. Obviously in many cultures it was frowned up, outlawed and vilified. In fact it could be a taboo subject ... leaving the impression that it doesn't exist. So I am certain that pythagoreanfulllotus' first statement is false.

 

This is hilarious!

 

Yet again the first reaction to the information I have posted is denial!!

 

How consistent people are!

 

O.K. let's be clear:

 

The first anthropological study of the Bushmen was by the Marshall family living with them in the 1950s.

 

So genetically the Bushmen are the original humans from 100,000 BCE.

 

There was a bottleneck of humans around 90,000 years ago with only a few dozen human families alive.

 

The Bushmen survived that bottleneck by creating a culture where all the males trained to be shamanic healers using techniques that spread around the world and also became watered down and changed -- more secret, more elitist, etc.

 

So when the anthropologists visited the original human culture it was as it existed originally -- this is corroborated by the rock carvings with a religious rock statue going back to 70,000 BCE.

 

The rock carvings are analyzed in detail by Dr. Bradford Keeney -- I recommend his book Ropes to God: The Bushmen Spiritual Universe.

 

So again this is empirical fact -- it can not be changed!

 

It's not semantics. It's not that something was hidden nor not talked about.

 

The Marshall family lived alone with the Bushmen which where otherwise completely isolated since 100,000 BCE.

 

The Marshall family lived with the Bushmen for years.

 

Read the quotes I posted.

 

Homosexuality was completely unknown to the Bushmen culture.

 

Meanwhile all the details of the shamanic trance training were revealed and demonstrated and described to the Marshall family.

 

So the Bushmen were not hiding any secrets to the Marshall family.

 

Also as I stated - no other anthropologist has discovered homosexuality in the original human culture.

 

Why is this ignored by mainstream science? For the same reason the Bushmen have been attacked and almost destroyed.

 

The Bushmen culture is completely based on shamanic healing -- that is the original basis for qigong.

 

Science -- even anthropology -- does not even officially acknowledge the existence of shamanic paranormal spiritual healing!!

 

Yet Science acknowledges homosexuality. haha.

 

The irony of this empirical truth is too funny to me.

 

I know -- again this is very difficult for people to accept.

 

Sorry to burst people's modern reality bubble but again there was no homosexuality in the original human culture.

[Sanzon]

`Does Racism/Sexism/Homophobia constitute a Personal Attack`

It's a weird feeling when people feel free to debate the legitamacy of something that feels so central to your very being.

 

Which is what this thread is about, how to do it respectfully due to its core nature as Seth has stated in the first post. I dont believe anybody here for any reason would like their core opened up, scrutinised and analysed publically. Many apologies. I hope the end result is a positive one. The thread has gone into debate about things that should be in another thread. May I respectfully suggest that to you pythagoreanfulllotus?

 

Which brings the discussion back on track to `Does Racism/Sexism/Homophobia constitute a Personal Attack?`

Edited February 13, 2013 by Sanzon

[Aetherous]

Let me just say though: damn this is hard. It's a weird feeling when people feel free to debate the legitamacy of something that feels so central to your very being.

 

Welcome to the world of "other people's opinions".

 

Not opposing you at all here...just saying, this is common in life. I hope you can feel good about yourself.

[voidisyinyang]

`Does Racism/Sexism/Homophobia constitute a Personal Attack`

 

Which is what this thread is about, how to do it respectfully due to its core nature as Seth has stated in the first post. I dont believe anybody here for any reason would like their core opened up, scrutinised and analysed publically. Many apologies. I hope the end result is a positive one. The thread has gone into debate about things that should be in another thread. May I respectfully suggest that to you pythagoreanfulllotus?

 

Which brings the discussion back on track to `Does Racism/Sexism/Homophobia constitute a Personal Attack?`

 

haha. Now I am being considered personally attacking someone!

 

All I am doing is presenting the truth about the Bushmen culture having no homosexuality!

 

Were the original humans homophobic! No! They did not even know that homosexuality existed!!!

 

Sorry to present this information to the public at large. haha.

 

I am quoting Elizabeth Marshall Thomas who lived with the Bushmen for years with her parents and brother -- all of them professional anthrpologists on the Bushmen.

 

Again this is not just the Marshall family - no anthropologist has found evidence of homosexuality in the Bushmen culture.

 

This is all I want to talk about.

 

The original human culture had no homosexuality.

 

It's a simple empirical truth!

 

Yet people have so far:

 

1) denied it's true

 

2) tried to claim I'm some how personally attacking someone.

 

haha. Sorry but neither of those things are true.

[zerostao]

empirical truth? now that is hilarious.

there could be empirical data or maybe even empircal evidence.

empirical truth??? cmon man

usually i see empirical conjecture, but i digress

Edited February 13, 2013 by zerostao

[Sanzon]

No Pythagoreanfulllotus, it's just information not specific to the thread. Everyone's allowed their perspectives, start a new thread & go for gold.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Sanzon

[liminal_luke]

edited to let go of sarcasm

 

Pythagorean,

 

Didn't mean to say you were attacking me. Only that I felt bad. Not the same thing. I'll get over it. If you have information to share well that's a good thing and I've enjoyed your posts in the past. I just hope we can all approach each other in a spirit of friendliness even when we disagree.

 

Liminal

Edited February 13, 2013 by liminal_luke

[zerostao]

i am not attacking anything except that there could exist empirical truth. it is good to see PFL back on the forum

[Aaron]

Hello Seth,

 

Let me just say this and I'm going to bow out (or maybe not owledge). I've had an epiphany and here it is. So long as someone hates, whether it is an idea, behavior, person, or thing, they will never find peace in their life. Case in point, I'm autistic, asperger's syndrome, very mild case, but I have it. Certain noises drive me crazy, in particular clicking and clucking sounds. They used to get me so angry that I became irrational, especially when people did it on purpose, but then I woke up to the fact that regardless of how much I despise those sounds, they are just sounds and holding hatred for these sounds is a waste of time and energy and only prevents me from finding peace in my life. I don't think I'll ever get to a point where I can hear them without cringing a bit, but that doesn't mean I have to hate them or devote all that energy to hating them, because it is all a waste of energy, so instead of focusing on them, letting them preoccupy my time, I take a deep breath... and let it go.

 

Let it go. Cringe if you have to, but don't let it disrupt the peace in your life. There will always be hate and bigotry, without it we can't have love and understanding. You have to decide which one you want to foster and how you choose to foster it. I say stop feeding the fire and get back to posting what you love posting about. Let this fire die and take a deep breath and feel that compassion that is inside of you, work with that. In the end spreading compassion will benefit you and everyone around you a hundred times more than hating will ever be able to do.

 

Aaron

Edited February 13, 2013 by Aaron

[liminal_luke]

Good advice Aaron. Letting it go now. Thanks

[Seth Ananda]

There is a great tradition of Homosexuality in many African tribes, and among the Australian aboriginals who may have just as long a history as the Africans...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality {scroll down to the African bit}

 

 

Saying that it never existed or was unheard of is rather strange.

 

Consider the Bonobo. Im sure Africans saw the blatantly homosexual behaviour that is native to that species, so to think that it was unheard of is rather strange.

 

Also considering the amount of testosterone that is {or is not} present in the mother, {while the foetus is forming its brains sexual attraction centres} contributes directly to whether one is attracted to men, women, or both, then it is again a rather lousy argument to suggest with any form of authority that there were no Homosexuals ever in 90% of human history.

 

Its actually quite funny.

 

In fact as with most of your claims, such as O@AD {which after all these years of being asked for a simple youtube video of you demonstrating your 'power' on unsuspecting female strangers, is still not forthcoming} I wonder if maybe you just pull these 'facts' out of your.... ...um... ...imagination?

Edited February 13, 2013 by Seth Ananda

[Apech]

haha. Now I am being considered personally attacking someone!

 

All I am doing is presenting the truth about the Bushmen culture having no homosexuality!

 

Were the original humans homophobic! No! They did not even know that homosexuality existed!!!

 

Sorry to present this information to the public at large. haha.

 

I am quoting Elizabeth Marshall Thomas who lived with the Bushmen for years with her parents and brother -- all of them professional anthrpologists on the Bushmen.

 

Again this is not just the Marshall family - no anthropologist has found evidence of homosexuality in the Bushmen culture.

 

This is all I want to talk about.

 

The original human culture had no homosexuality.

 

It's a simple empirical truth!

 

Yet people have so far:

 

1) denied it's true

 

2) tried to claim I'm some how personally attacking someone.

 

haha. Sorry but neither of those things are true.

 

 

Although I haven't read the authors you quote I am prepared to accept that what you say about the Bushmen is true. But I think you have made a number of assumptions about them and their relation to the whole of human history which cannot be substantiated. It is not possible to know if there was homosexuality in modern mankind through the last 150,000 years from looking at one group which although it stayed in Africa has had a history of its own and interaction with other groups and so on. It is more likely since it is found in the natural world and in all (as far as I know) cultures in the historical period that it did exist and is just a natural part of human expression.

 

I did not think you were attacking anyone personally but the hypothesis you present suggest that homosexuality is an imbalance which does not appear if people practice qi gong and so on. In other words it is some kind of defect. If you think that, then that is up to you but I don't agree. Gay people have a difference obviously but I don't think it is a defect, I think it is a different expression of that which makes up a human being.

[voidisyinyang]

Although I haven't read the authors you quote I am prepared to accept that what you say about the Bushmen is true. But I think you have made a number of assumptions about them and their relation to the whole of human history which cannot be substantiated. It is not possible to know if there was homosexuality in modern mankind through the last 150,000 years from looking at one group which although it stayed in Africa has had a history of its own and interaction with other groups and so on. It is more likely since it is found in the natural world and in all (as far as I know) cultures in the historical period that it did exist and is just a natural part of human expression.

 

I did not think you were attacking anyone personally but the hypothesis you present suggest that homosexuality is an imbalance which does not appear if people practice qi gong and so on. In other words it is some kind of defect. If you think that, then that is up to you but I don't agree. Gay people have a difference obviously but I don't think it is a defect, I think it is a different expression of that which makes up a human being.

 

O.K. just to clarify again - the Bushmen were the original humans and did not have interaction with any other tribes.

 

Again the Bushmen had no homosexuality.

 

Yes Africa has homosexuality but that's in the Bantu tribes -- not the Bushmen.

 

So the Bantus first enslaved the Bushmen when the Bantus got cattle and used iron and began expanding across Africa -- around 3,000 BCE.

 

So some of the Bushmen where then enslaved by the Bantu before the Marshall family did their anthropological work in the 1950s.

 

When the Marshalls lived with the Bushmen those tribes they lived with had no encounter with any other tribes.

 

Even still the tire tracks of the Marshalls were used by the Bantus to track down the Bushmen to enslave them further.

 

So there are still some Bushmen who have worked to retain their original culture but the Marshall family were living with the Bushmen in the 1950s when the Bushmen still retained their original isolated culture without any contact with any other tribes.

 

For example in South Africa - outside of the Kalahari desert -- there is the Hottentots -- called Khoi people -- and their language is similar to the Bushmen languages but the Khoi people adopted the Bantu cattle culture thousands of years ago and the Khoi people also have homosexuality. The Khoi people also practice labia minora enlargement. The Bushmen have no circumcision nor genital mutilation either.

 

Again the cave paintings of the Bushmen document their spiritual culture based on sex celibacy sublimation going back to 100,000 BCE. The paintings themselves go back thousands of years - some say back to 28,000 BCE -- the oldest religious cave statue of a snake goes back to 70,000 BCE. The culture of the Bushmen is based on the origin of human language itself as anthropologist Chris Knight makes the subject of his book Blood Relations.

 

The bonobo homosexuality is interesting because the male bonobos rarely ejaculate.

 

 

Frans de Waal reports: “I have never seen ejaculations during sex between males nor attempts at

anal penetration....In the males neither genital massage nor masturbation was ever observed to

produce ejaculation.”521

 

521 Frans de Waal, Bonobo: The forgotten ape (University of California Press, 1998), pp. 103-4.

 

 

It is perhaps suggestive in this regard that male ejaculation did not occur in any of

the sexual encounters de Waal observed, with the possible exception of malefemale

copulation. Given the human propensity to view orgasm as the ultimate

goal of sex (at least for males), this lack of climatic activity is rather surprising.

However, remember that the majority of the bonobo sexual encounters take place

during tension-filled social situations. If ejaculation had occurred, then the males

ability to resolve or avoid additional conflicts via sexual overtures would have

been severely diminished during the subsequent refractory period. In other

words orgasmic sex (if orgasm can be identified with ejaculation in the bonobo) would be a liability in this situation, at least for males.551

 

551 Paul R. Abramson, Steven D. Pinkerton, With Pleasure: Thoughts on the nature of human sexuality (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 43.

 

 

That's from my book which is a free download on my blog -- or it's also scribd online. So what he is describing about the bonobo homosexuality is more like the Mantak Chia exercises to stimulate the jing energy without ejaculation.

 

 

There are many other notable similarities between bonobo culture and the baseline

culture I constructed in Chapter Four, including synchronized vocal interlock, female

assertiveness, non-hierarchical political structure and yes, most certainly, a tendency

to avoid violent behavior, none of which are characteristic of chimpanzees. Thus, one

way of answering the question of what our ancestors were like might be, very

simply: bonobos! ….While, according to Merker, true synchrony is absent among

chimpanzees, it can apparently be found in bonobos.

 

522 Dr. Victor Grauer, Sounding the Depths, Chapter 18 and 16, 2011. So here we find bonobos have synchrony in sound much like the Bushmen trance dance culture and the bonobo males rarely ejaculate much like the Bushmen males and the bonobo culture is peaceful and controlled by the females much like the bonobo primate culture.

 

So modern humanity with homosexuality is actually more like the chimpanzee culture which also has the males as violent war mongering rapists.

 

 

So Jane Goodall states chimpanzees exhibit homosexuality only in captivity.

 

Again this is just an empirical fact.

 

Yeah I would say the bonobo culture is more like the Bushmen culture whereas modern humans are more like captive chimpanzees.

 

 

In fact, among non-human animals in general, what looks like homosexual

behavior may often be more correctly categorized as infantile play, dominance-

submission behavior or poor discrimination.

 

http://www.anthroserbia.org/content/pdf/articles/cvorovic_nonhuman_primates_sexual_behaviour.pdf

 

Excellent academic analysis of homosexuality in primates.

Edited February 13, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[Vmarco]

i am not attacking anything except that there could exist empirical truth. it is good to see PFL back on the forum

 

Empirical truth? That's an oxymoron. There's empirical evidence,...which is, information derived from sense experience,...what Lao Tzu calls "monkey mind."

 

Personally, I'd love to live in a world without homosexuality,...and without heterosexuality,...a world of Human Beings who practice Human Beingness. I haven't met any prehistoric African san men to see if they had what Europeans call same sex relationships.

 

Few here seem to grasp the ignorance of binary gender,...that ignorance produces homophobes, transphobes, gynophobes, etc. I'm not saying that so-called gender identity leads to so-called sexual preference,...but attempting to point to man contrived beliefs that not only are utter nonsense, but undermine spiritual evolution.

 

"the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go" Lao Tzu

Edited February 13, 2013 by Vmarco