John Galaor

I love the natural look. Anything like painted faces, pierced lips, eyebrows, or any other part of the anatomy pierced or tattooed are a turn off to me. I like also the hair as natural looking as possible. But that is because I am a rather weird type.

That is exactly what I think. I can only get upset if I do not like to do anything with this guy. If I had liked him to do something, I would be glad he would had asked.

That was a good one. What is the most important part of your body? You should had asked him. Well, perhaps, next time you can tell anyone this answer.

I think, that when you are interested in guys that had a straight look, it is very difficult to discern a gay one from a non gay. Or just in case, this is a question I post for you all, "Is it possible that a straight guy would not be gay if he plays a top role with a gay?" That's another equivalent question, ¿a guy who tops or gets another gay is automatically gay?"

you lost the opportunity to tell him, "Are you interested to know how it tastes?" Also, you should had offered him the option to taste your own hard meat. There is not a better way to learn some things than the experience.

Perhaps, this "straight guy" was fancying about doing something with you, just in case you had confessed you played a girl role. Some guys believe they are not gay if they play the top role.

Yeah. I wholly agree. I got the idea that we mostly harvest what we had sowed.

Ok, let us assume the fate, destiny and other forces are inexistent. Even then, is very difficult we can determine our destiny or our path towards a concrete future. For it exists something that can be called random occurrences. You are in a plane flying from NYC to London. Then the plane blows up or simply falls down. We can call this fate or destiny, or whatever. But it can be the result of something that was going on and on wrong and nobody check it, or corrected. Then same can happen if tomorrow the super-volcano of Yellowstone blows up like it happened 700 thousand years ago. Or if a meteorite of hundred million tons would hit the earth. We cannot call this Fate. Or at least there is not any way we can prove that is this has to be called Fate. Then, perhaps in 40 or 50 years this civilization goes bust, due to exhaustion of oil. For some unexplainable reasons our financial leaders were unable to agree on allotting money in sufficient quantity to create alternative ways to produce and store energy to compensate for the exhaustion of fossil fuels; not only for the exhaustion of oil, but coal as well and natural gas. Then, there is the rest. Our destiny is in part the result of a chance. A little like betting in Las Vegas. You had some parents, you have some economic status, some DNA in your cells, some personal circumstances withing your family, etc. All this conditions are outside your own will. On the other hand, you will desire or you will to do for sure only some basic behavior, like eating daily and drinking water to stay alive, for unless you do this basic behavior you will not stay alive for many days. So we have this basic cravings of eating some food and drink some water. We cannot either say that we eat and drink water because we are free; we do it because we are alive. Well, all animals are in the same case.

I was simply trying to train our minds in a little exercise. It all depends on... well, we cannot be certain about many things. In science we have only banal certitudes. But even one of these banal certitudes one day will give us a surprise for we have to change the paradigm that we had used till present to understand it.

Ok. Perhaps, to clear this argument, we should focus a little around an acceptable definition common to both of us. I remember I had an argument with someone that lasted too long. I was due to the fault of a common definition. I do not think we are so far off each other. Concise Oxford defines freewill as "voluntary". I cannot argue with this, meaning that "one decides to do something for he likes it". That is is not forced to act in this case. Like in going to a war, or some Mondays going to work, etc. Then, if this is the idea you have of free will we are totally in accord. I was considering a different case. That case was considering that we can choose something like at random, without any previous knowledge or experience of our choice. The most likely case would be when we taste some unknown food. Just imagine that a friend invites you to an Asiatic restaurant. You had never been to an ethnic restaurant in your life. You had never tasted exotic food in your life for you were raised in a small village of North Dakota. Well, then you go to this restaurant because your are pressed psychologically from your new friend. Then, as you want to be friend to him, you accept going to a Vietnamese restaurant. This is not a case of free will, of course. You go there conditioned by other reasons. Then the same occurs with the food, etc. You tasted, then you said, well, this is not so bad, and so on. You slowly get into the business of eating this exotic food, etc. Well, in any case, this experience was not the result of free decision. It was in a way conditioned. Just imagine that while you are eating this food, your friend is being so nice and so lovely, that the taste of the food becomes a secondary question, almost banal, not having any importance, for really this food does not tastes bad. Then, I was considering the freewill as independent of our experience. By example, I am tired and falling sleep. Then I say "I'm going to sleep" Well, this will be a free action, is a form of free will. No. I cannot be a case of free will, because my body was asking me to sleep. Let's us try another example. In this moment, I want to play a piano. Well, is this a case of freewill? Perhaps not. I only could play the piano decently, I am not a star playing the piano, because I had been training like five thousand hours. I did as much work for my mum was always praising me and telling what a good pianist I was, and how much she liked to hear me playing the piano. Then, even if in this moment I want to play the piano, this is what I am feeling in this moment, and nobody is pushing me to play. I am alone. But instead to teaching me lovely to play, my mum would had been bitching me into playing the piano, I would had been hating to play that thing. So, in a case, the voluntary action of playing was the result of being more or less well trained into that. In the case I hated to play that thing, I will do it only if forced to do it. then, the idea of a choice, only is valid when both options are equally pleasant and cost the same effort. If you have to choose between eating an apple you have on a plate before your eyes, and eating a pear that is in hill, and you have to go to fetch the pear going up... the options are not equivalent. In the case of a gay male that do not feel any sexual attraction for a female you cannot invoke the freedom to choose with some other sexual experiences. Then it is not a valid statement. Then, we do something because in this moment we feel like doing it. The idea had come to our mind in this moment, and you say to yourself, I am going to do this, or that. It is free in the sense, that it has come spontaneously to your mind in this moment, but it is not independent (that is is not free) in the sense that has some relation with your past experience. Then, let's consider the case of a gay, too young to have had any sexual experience. Then, for unknown reasons he began to feel some thrilling, some exciting on his mind, watching another boy his age, or a little older. Well, you cannot explain this for the experience of this boy, but you can postulate that something has awakened in his brain while he watched another boy of his age. Then, is neither a free election. It just happened, with you knowing the reason. Then... freewill exists? I depends on how we are going to define the concept. if we say, do do anything that we like to do, then this is free will, then it is ok for me. If I say, we cannot do not anything freely, for it all results from some experiences and conditions of our body (environment) and our genetics makeup, also a determinism of different class. A person who has not learned English to some degree cannot choose to speak in English, etc.

Perhaps there is more than being the youngest or oldest or so. Perhaps there is a real genetic printing on being a top dog and so. Let's imagine that there are like three or six gens involved to determine a dominance. Some genes determine dominance and some others submission. The genes in between can determine intermediate values. Then, one can inherit most likely an "average" rank in dominance. We will be not a top dog, not the last dog. Even then, with an average dominance we can have a tendency to dominate if we can. That is we try to dominate by default. That is, if we can, and the other part let us to dominate. In this case, older brother is best situated to be a bully their younger bros. Unless the older brother was assigned by genetics to be mostly submissive extreme or something. This could could explain that some older brothers could also be gay. The statistical significance of this discovery is not very strong. Then, in practice, of three or four brothers, all of them have some likelihood of being gay, but not with the same probability. That is what tell us this study about the rank among brothers in relation to being gay. I am not meaning that the rank of dominance it the only variable to become gay. There most be other variables as well. I am thinking that the oxitocine can play also some role in this. Other variables can be that some "receptors" in the brain are faulty and are blind that it exists enough testosterone in the blood to make you a top dog. In this case, the faulty receptor makes you behave like you were lacking in testosterone. But your body frame, your strong bones, and bulky muscles can indicate that you have enough testosterone. Nevertheless you can be a huge queen or something. I had seen a few of these cases. That's why I say that there is something more than mere dominance and merely an amount of testosterone in the blood. By the way, the normal spread of levels in testosterone, can go from 250 ng/dl (nanograms per deciliter) to 1,250 ng/dl. Then, this great difference can a explain a lot about our behavior. So the average value of testosterone levels is about 750 ng/dl With only a little fraction (5% ?) having between 1000 and 1250 ng/dl While only a small fraction has between 250 and 500. These values are normal spread and refers only to about 70% of a population. Then, 15% have levels well below 250 ng/dl and yet another 15% would had levels over 1250. Probably till 1500 or more in the extreme. Then, this wide range of levels in testosterone can explain a lot of things. My theory is that high levels of testosterone made you a bad student. On the other hand, very low levels of testosterone are not good either to be a good student, for your self esteem would be to low, and even your expectations to achieve something difficult. Nevertheless, I postulated in other post, the condition of being dominant can be depressed or enhanced depending on the personal circumstances. I mean, it can be depressed or enhanced, over the layout of basic genetics. If you are often bullied by your peers, for whatever reason, your sense of dominance shrinks easily. Then, a bully can start its career by bullying his younger brothers, and not being stopped by a father or a stern mother. Most parents ignore the circumstances among his children at home. They don't even care what happened to them in school. On the other hand an only child can be a failure to being a top dog, even if his has a good combination of genes. This can happen because he lacks the training in fighting that younger brothers can provide. Then this lack of early fighting can be very bad to be dominant, for any fight whatever would scare you very easily. Then, this sort of training plays a fundamental role here. It is not different to being good at maths. If you are trained well early in life to perform this abstract operations you would be good at maths. If your training was average, your ability for maths would be average. The same is valid for a total lack of training. You will be very bad at learning maths. In any case, the condition of being a top dog is mostly genetic, but it can be also relative. There is not any contradiction. I base this idea in something I told in my former post. When a top bully or a bunch of bullies met other bullies a lot stronger than they and more aggressive, their rank in dominance plummets. For the dominance of the bullies in a place, like a high school, is mostly fed by an absence of challenges. When you consider the bunch of bullies of a high school, you could observe that they never met any challengers. We can consider the as potential bullies a bunch of black thugs. But the most probably is that this thugs had dropped out of school to sell drugs or other business. On the other hand, while there is not any law for a bunch of new white bullies to be challenged by other bunch of white bullies, in the case that the challengers were blacks, it would cause an alarm, and the head of school would call the police, reporting the black bullies for harassment to the white bullies. That is why we see rarely this type of interracial fights. Then the solution is a form of apartheid. The races are divided in an invisible limit, among white and blacks. There has to be on a hand the white bullies and the other the black bullies. That is what happens in prisons, for what I had seen in videos and written stories. The case of dismissed dominance can be observed when a team of three young lion brothers kick out of his land the older lions with residence in a pride. They do that after a fight of five to ten minutes. It is very easy. Then the losers left with their tail in their hind legs to die of hunger in a some days or weeks. They feel suddenly depressed and loose all faith in their abilities to hunt and survive. That could happened to any of the bullies of a high school if they are put into a prison full of most scary thugs.

<br><br>I agree with this idea. There is another side to look at this. It is called epigenetics. Epigenetics talk about that some genes can get shrunk, or inactivated by the effect of environments conditions. A very important part of environment is social. Then, to have two bully older brothers can make you a timid shy boy. Your testosterone fabric can get depressed, it is a theory of mine, and your attitude changes enough to make you different. So many different, that you can feel subordinated to your older brothers, and ready to comply to most of his fancies and to endure his bullies pranks. <br>I remember a video a hyenas. The hyenas society is very hierarchical. The alpha female is so full of testosterone that she has all males and females threatened and scared. Even their puppies are so full of testosterone through the milk they take that are a very quarrelsome team of fighters and often there are case of cannibalism among the cubs, or badly injured brothers that die as a result of the aggressions. <br>But in general, a detail on the life of hyenas is that the alpha female has a lot more of testosterone than the rest of the pack. Then, one story I saw in a video was about a male strong cub that was the favorite of mother alpha. This male had often a favored position at feeding beside his mum, that protected him from bullying at the frenzy moment that is eating a prey. Well, to end the story, a lioness that had an extreme hate for hyenas, killed one day the alpha female. Then, the young cub, lost his protection and become the last monkey of the pack at the time of feeding. Then, the promising rank he would have of becoming an alpha male among their peers were lost forever. It occurs that when the older lions of a pride are expelled from the territory they have by younger aggressive males, they become rather depressed and die of hunger in a mater of one or two weeks. They could had been living perhaps for a few more years, if they were not dethroned. Then, I think the social conditions can change the wiring of the brain and also determine the activity or the inactivity of some genes. That also could determine the composition or our hormones. How high is the level of testosterone and how high is the level of oxitocine. Then, in a boy that is in a lower rank dominated by older bullying brothers his body reacts depressing the production of testosterone, and increasing the level of oxitocine. The oxitocine make us prone to be kind and loving with those around us. or with those that are on a rank over us. <br>Then, among the alpha males in a human pack of high school teems, or in a college, to realize they are the top dogs, made them to produce even more testosterone. <br>Imagine you could not a virtual experiment with humans.<br>You get one of these bullies, a top dog in high school, and put him a dangerous environment like a prison full of hardened thugs. Well, my prediction is that his attitude would change in a matter of a few days.<br>The simple fact of being detained and put it in a jail for a few days starts to depress his top dog attitude.<br>His testosterone levels would plummet to the most lower levels of his whole life in two or three days. <br> Then, once he is put in a prison, he would probably end up being the bitch of some dangerous thug quite easily. He would end being utterly dismissive and dominated. His only strength would come from a perception that he would be protected by the master male that uses him as a bitch in property.<br>For being a top dog and a bully is a relative condition. Your sense of being a top dog can change when you are challenged by new threatening and scary top dogs. <br>There are a lot of signs to define who would be a top dog, not only the body size, but the aggressive and threatening manners. There is also the point that always the top dog is accompanied by some henchmen. That gives the top leader a farther argument to upheld his threatening attitude. <br>If our top aggressive bully from high school were put alone in a prison or a jail, the simple unknown environment would collapse their self assurance on his capacity to be a bully. He is in unknown territory, and had not any allies to give him some help. <br>That make me go back to the case of the high school and the phenomenon of bullying. In the case of bullying the person threatened or harassed feel impotent, because the top dog is always accompanied by his henchmen.<br>Then, as those guys are bullies, the crowd accept the facts as they are. If the police or the head of the school starts questioning about a dramatic case of bullying in which someone hanged himself, nobody is gonna tell a word about what happened. Nobody has seen anything wrong on the part of the bullies. They were doing nothing wrong. Not even the police or the head master want to know any of the facts, even if some loser want to tell them about.<br>This can explain the case of Columbine high school massacre. While all commentators in the TV and newspapers declared that they could not understand what happened. I understood it pretty well with the first news. Even if I never had been in a US high school. It was a crystal clear to me. Some forms of mild or strong bullying exists in all societies. So, it is easy to understand the case. In the case of US as there are so many firearms, you have to decided between hang yourself simply, or to kill a bunch of rats before you blow your head up with a shot.<br>Bullying does not only happens in a forgotten high school in Colorado, it happens also in some other places, like here in GA.<br>You go to a chat, and you could feel that someone is starting to look at you as a good objective for bullying. This always starts in small discreet steps. Little by little is goes going up like anywhere else. <br><br><br>

the first time I was in a homo bar I was terrified. Not only I was scared of a police raid on the people there, but all those men with gay manners scared me a lot. It that does not mean that I had not any gay experience. Well, sometimes I felt excited in the beach while watching a horny boy with a nice bulge. Other of my experiences were, that I was often wooed by some horny males, when we were alone chatting or walking. I loved to chat alone with another male. Then, when he started to woo me I was easily driven to do him some service. But they very rarely reciprocated. They mostly ignored that I had also a male organ that craved for attention. Why some males wooed me? Perhaps they were aware of some signs, like my mild manners, my polite way of speech, my soft ways, and... the main sign was that I had a girlish face that made me look like ten years younger. But in my life I never identified myself as a gay... but in secret. For being gay was not a permanent feature of my mind. I do not often had gay fantasies. Most of all, the gay in me awakened when I was watching a young manly guy that show some horniness in the form of a bulge. In other cases, I got excited after a while of being wooed by a manly and kind guy that was speaking to me nicely. I could not resist as he caressed me discreetly for a while, or by his insistence on asking me to help him on his state of need. But this was not a permanent feature of my mind, for sometimes, I had fantasies about a girl I liked, or something. It was after I had a good job that I felt more sure with girls. If I had never found a good job I would never think of marrying at all. Then, when I got one, I started to look for a girlfriend to marry. When I found one, I married her after in three or four months. Once I was married I had not any more sexual gay experiences.

For today standards all of the them look artificial. Do not look any real. It was due to a case of too many cosmetics? These faces make me recall the aliens of Star Trek series, like the clingons or other.

an opportunity to comment about school bullying in a case of suicide. I am thinking about the morality of bullying behind the general speech on morality. --------------- http://today.msnbc.m...oday-parenting/ ------------- By Mike Celizic TODAY.com contributor TODAY.com contributor updated 3/6/2009 9:26:11 AM ET The image was blurred and the voice distorted, but the words spoken by a young Ohio woman are haunting. She had sent nude pictures of herself to a boyfriend. When they broke up, he sent them to other high school girls. The girls were harassing her, calling her a slut and a whore. She was miserable and depressed, afraid even to go to school. And now Jesse Logan was going on a Cincinnati television station to tell her story. Her purpose was simple: “I just want to make sure no one else will have to go through this again.” The interview was in May 2008. Two months later, Jessica Logan hanged herself in her bedroom. She was 18. ----- The story continues with more information.

I have this book of Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance. Very good. The case is that humans are more lustful as average than any other animals, but bonobos. But not all humans are equally lustful, I suppose. It can be considered some spread of lust feelings. Testosterone as a main driver of lust. Except in cases of extreme consumption of this hormone, like in the the case of sports, more or less intense. In this case, the intense playing of a sport consumes most of this hormone moderating the lust to some degree. The most lustful males are those with a athletic body that do not perform any sport or little. Then, testosterone itself enhances the production of muscular mass even in the absence of physical training. In other cases, some people can have some levels of testosterone, had a great body frame, but some receptor in their brain does no function, or is defective. This has the effect that he do not feel like a male full of testosterone, but feel attracted to other males. This would explain the frequent cases of those queens with a huge body full of muscles. In general, the testosterone levels in the blood of males are widely spread between 250 to 1250 ng/dl (nanograms per deciliter) A deciliter is 100 c.c. So, you can see this is a great spread between 250 and 1250 theres is a ration of 1 to 5 in testosterone. Then, in the same way that some physical culturists are eager to inject themselves with testosterone, I can imagine that some males "feel the need" of having some testosterone injected from stronger males. Testosterone is a hormone that makes you feel sure of yourself, in a way you can feel more optimistic, and more stronger, more ready for a challenge. This is a theory of mine. Nobody is going to tell this.

we can start not to eat tomorrow, but this behavior cannot last very long, unless some one keeps encouraging your for fasting. An example extreme can be seen in the terrorist suicides. No one ca become a suicide on it own, without some social interface. I mean, the person that suicides, for religious, political, or personal motives, is in some form of relation with others. In the case of political suicides, there is involved a form of heroism. The individual wants to have some form of social ascent, some form of social appreciation. As a voluntary suicide soldier, he is rewarded verbally with praises, and probably there is involved some monetary gratification for his family. Then this is possible. He cannot desert of his voluntary mission of sacrifice for he would become a pariah, or would end with a much lower status than he had before. In the case of other suicides, like those of the Twin Towers of NYC, they were doing a team. But becoming a team, nobody dares to back off and desert the mission. For not anyone want to be seen as a traitor or a cowards by the other members of the team. So, it looks like it was a case of free will, but it is not. Is a form of social compulsion that gets you trapped into the act. You are held prisoner by a social cage or a prison. Your personality is so strongly entwined with that of other people, that you are not autonomous. have you seen the experiment of Salomon Asch? Here is a link to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

You comment probably means, that our behavior is not predictable in an exact way. That's true. Our behavior routines fluctuates around some average. But nobody can know how much a priori unless they had a detailed record of our behavior for a long time. In this way, by making of log of the behavior, we can have an idea of how often do you drink whiskey, by example, or any other liquor, or a beer. Then, the patterns of your drinking behavior, or any other behavior, can be predicted withing a limited degree of certitude. For the records, can show if your are a regular drinker or not. By example, a bottle of whiskey can last in my house as much as six months. But this is not a fixed time. Sometimes the bottle can be consumed in two months. Then it is not easy to define an average time to consume this bottle, unless you take into account the spread of the numbers. Then a person can have predictable patterns of behavior in some behaviors and not in others. I am almost regular man to go to sleep, around 12 pm. But this fluctuates. I got some periods of going to bed earlier, and other periods I go later. Then the property of this behavior cannot be defined by an average, but by an average plus/minus some normal spread in time. The average do not tell us about how much it can vary from a time to another. Let's imagine that a person goes to bed, at 11 pm, plus or minus 72 minutes, with a probability near 95% This is can be called a prediction.

There are two different points in your argument, at least. One is the concept of free will as such. Being free means is not conditioned. By example, just imagine a shop-lifter who wants to steal something. He looks around to see if anyone, specially a guard, is watching before getting the good he wants to lift. If a security guard is looking, he would contained itself, if nobody is watching the thief gets what he wants. Then, in both cases, his behavior is not free. He steals because they had learned long ago to take good things without asking or paying for it. The result of his stealing is to consume something, or show the good he stole to his friends, as if telling, you see? I have also the same things as you. It is not different to playing tennis or a piano. You cannot play any of this unless you had passed for some training that has taken many hours of your life. Then, to be able to play tennis is something conditional to your previous experience in life. The same with shop-lifting. If the person is trained in a way, that he can easily satisfy the consumption or possession of some common desired goods, they you are not going to become a shoplifter. Specially if you know that to steal can have undesirable consequences. You can be trained in such a way that you fear these consequences, and do not want to get involved in such actions. It is a little like a child being disobedient. It can be postulated, that a child is disobedient in a high degree, by the consequences of this behavior. It means the child gets a lot of attentions for being disobedient. Then, to be disobedient is neither a free option, but the result of a particular conditioning at home. It starts to be lerned in the first few years of life. Another question is that if the agent of an action has a knowledge of the probable consequences of his act. Only a mad man has not a previous knowledge of that. Then, there is a will all right, but it is not a free will. The agent of a conscious action whatever wants to have some form of gratification. For the aim of most actions are feel a gratification. Other question altogether is that such an action would be prohibited by a law. Then, instead of "free will", we would be better talking of a "conscious action", with a knowledge of the implications of our acts. I reject the concept of "free will", for any conscious action is the result of some learning or some natural inner force that drives us towards some action. An example of free will has to be banal. That would be the case of choosing between apples and pears, when both fruits are equally appealing. But if the agent that chooses feels a phobia for any of the elements to choose, there is not freewill either. Then, the argument of some religious fundies about gays, that is a sexual choice, is fake. Is fake in the sense that most gays do not feel attracted for the opposite sex. Or just is case a gay person feels a mild attraction for the opposite gender, there are some other problems involved that made the choice impractical. By example, I can feet attracted to Julia Robberts, like many other males, but I cannot choose her as a mate, for she would not accept me as a potential mate. Then, once you had been rejected so many times by Julia Robberts as a pretender, you will forget this fancy and focus on any other thing.

well, as you say "We have no choice but to have free will." perhaps you mean that for as long as we are alive we will be doing something that we like to do. Everybody eats something daily. He also have to drink some water. Some people also had a beer from time to time, or drink a whiskey or something. Then people use to sleep in a bed, has a home, a work, etc. he is doing something on a daily bases, almost on a daily bases, because he is simple alive. For as long as we stay alive we are doing something we like, mostly because of our past experience. Like any animal do. So the animals had also their own free will, I suppose. Why do I mention our past experience? Well, just imagine that I never had eaten some Chinese or Tibetan food. Well, the most probable outcome of this is that I will not eat in the future this kind of food. Lets consider other questions, I never go to bars or restaurants. I had gone a few times but I do not like to go. Them I met an old friend from my adolescence that want me to go to a bar to chat and had a beer. I do not want but he insists. Then I felt obliged to go to a bar to have a beer with an old friend that I barely remember his face. Then, I go to a bar, but this was forced. I did no go the bar because I have a free will. Simply put, I wanted to be kind to him or something; perhaps I do not wanted to look aloof. It can imagine instances in which we are obliged to go to a war, or to accept a work one dislikes, for one needs to earn some money, etc. Then you are doing all this because you need the money, and it is not any easy to find a work you would like. Then, being social animals we are forced to do somethings we do not like specially because we are social, and you do not want to be excessively isolated from other people. In a certain way, I am chatting here, because I need to speak to some other people. Living mostly alone, I need someone to talk to from time to time.

I have lost my bet. I did not hope anyone would reply to this topic in ten days. But they did. Nevertheless i feel not free to tell my mind on this topic not to offend the opinions of other people in this thread. I have long ago thought about this topic, specially when I was writing a book on psychology. Then, I do not dare to enter into this fray. Then, at least, this containment on my part proves to some degree that I do not feel free, that I fear to offend other people. I don't want to be hated. Then, when I read a story that is badly composed, I not to say it looks to my eyes rather trashy; I cannot tell what I think. So, in part, we are controlled by other people. We are up to some point, tamed by society. But we are not fully tamed, in the sense that we do all our parents wanted us to be doing. In the same sense, being gay proves that we were not totally tamed. Or perhaps we were tamed, but by some other forces withing us. Perhaps we had a strong lust. Perhaps we needed some other males had that we needed. Then, we can think we are freer than others because we are gay, and did not follow the directions that outlawed gay sex. But, on the other hand, it can be said that we had been driven by inner forces withing us, like the strong forces of lust. Then, while some people had little lust, could abstain to do something, and others do not. It is any case, can be put an example of doing a free choice? Well, let us imagine that we have on a plate an apple and an orange. It looks pretty simple to imagine we are here free to exercise a free will. Is it that possible? It looks likely. Just imagine the choice is banal in the sense that we do not care or have not any preference between an apple and and orange. Well, it is not that easy. If is summer and we are unconsciously feeling some thirst, we would choose an orange, for an orange has more water. If we were more hungry than thirsty, we would had chosen the apple, for it has less water by weight than an orange. While an orange has a 95% of water, an apple can have an 80% of water. Then, at weight equal the apple is more nutritive than the orange. Then there are more reasons to contaminate the free will. Nobody knows but the person doing a choice that he has a hidden hate for any of the two pieces of fruit. Otherwise, the person could had eaten a lot of oranges yesterday, and now prefers an apple. Other case can be the result that I hate my aunt Susan, that is a hateful bitch; well, she was very fond of oranges and was always doing propaganda of oranges. Then since I had many aversive experiences with my Aunt Susan I hate oranges even if I am not aware of the reason why. Then, in this case, even if I do not remember that I hate aunt Susan, I have chosen an apple. But I could think I like a lot more apples than oranges, and so on. Then, our likes and dislikes can be related to our past experiences in life. Then, we can never be sure what are the reasons behind anything we are doing. Sometimes you see the face of someone and you dislike but you do not know the reason. Then, this can be related to a past experience you had in life. The face of this person can be linked to someone that looked that some person that did you wrong or that treated you in a bad manner or had made your life miserable long ago, when you were a kid or a young man. Then, anything we are doing can be related or determined to our former experience in life. Just imagine you are giving a choice to someone between a food you know well and you like, and another food you do not know, or that you know you dislike. Then, in this case we are not before an example of a free choice. Let's imagine another story. It is suppose you have to like women, for you a male. For for some reason you had experienced that women do not feel any sympathy for you. You feel like rebuked by ladies. Then if can be understandable that you put your eyes on other people that show you some form of love. Then, if you had pleasant experiences with other males but not with females, you cannot have a free choice between females and males. To put the things at the most easy, a free choice is when the alternative to choose are so equivalent that is a banal choice. But if they offer you choice between something you like and something you hate this is not a free choice at all. Then this example does not prove you have a free will.

There existed also the concept of lovers among adults. Specially in ancient warrior societies. Just imagine a band of those warriors that went pillaging villages and trying to conquer a land to live and establish themselves. All along their warrior path they were probably making couples of lovers. In general the concept were lovers of distinct age. One being older than the other by four or five years. They were couples of warriors, sort of like the knight and squire of medieval ages. For I suppose those warriors could not go on carrying women with them on their path of war, for many times had to flee very fast persecuted by an aggressive army of the local warriors. It is my idea that those bands of warriors and marauders could not be accompanied by females. Then, later on, when they conquer a land and establish in it, the marry with the local women, and the forget their former experience as gay lovers. But there is a moment in static societies that they are overpopulated. Then they try to solve the problem limiting the rights to breed to those that inherit a piece of land. And it is mostly the older son of the family that who inherit the land. Another way to stop the excessive breeding is to separate the children by sexes. Not only the children, they separate the young males and females that have a most potential to breed. Most commentators nowadays tend to forget these natural strictures about breeding. And use to think that in former times most people was breeding freely like today in Cameroon or Latin American countries. Well, they were not. A control was established not permitting the females to breed unless they were married. Then, the average rate of growth of the population for the planet between AD 1 and AD 1800 was simply 0.08% a year. This cannot be explained by children mortality, that was important, but mostly for a social limitation to the right of breeding. You can compared this small growth with those of most poor countries of today that are on the range of 2.5% a year for the past several decades. All this rant seems to bear not any relationship with being or not being homosexual. Then coming back to the social strictures that separated males from females, gave us a probably key to understand how had developed the case for being gay. There is an age window in which we could easily discover the pleasures of sex. But at this moment, the sexes are mostly segregated by a strong psychological barrier. Nobody can deny this reality. Then, the barrier is not only imposed on females, males are also affected by this barrier. Then, those young people cannot play in a natural way to discover the pleasures of sex. This is not the case of hunter gatherer societies. This societies had not this strictures separating the sexes. They do not need, not because of high mortality, but because hunger is rather common, and the female reproductive system does not work until she had accumulated 30% of fat as body weight. This can be achieved when females are about 20 to 24 years old. Then, after the first child and with breast feeding, the females get thin again, and do not get pregnant until five or six years later. So in these societies there is not any need to separate the sexes. Then, in agricultural societies, the plague is overpopulation soon appeared. And sexes are segregated. So, when the young people has the age to discover the pleasures of sex they are playing, more or less naked, with another member of the same sex. They do not need you had performed anything openly sexual. Even if you had done nothing sexual with your friend you had discovered the pleasure of playing naked with another human of the same gender. You have discovered the pleasure of feeling another's male skin if you are male, or pleasure of watching naked bodies of other males. The same occurs with females. There should be natural to feel pleasure in watching a naked body. But if the naked body you watch is of the same sex as yours, some wiring is occurring in your brain. And this wiring can be in the process of making you gay. Our brain is getting wired with the behavior we are doing. Then, there is also the problem that we are social animals. This means that some members can be genetically predisposed at being dominant while others in the opposite extreme can be submissive. People in between is middle of the road. It can be postulated that submissive males can easily comply to orders given from dominant males. Not only can they complied when are ordered, they can comply mentally in their inner thinking, even if not given any order yet. But they could feel some form of pleasure by thinking they are doing any form of service to a dominant male he had seen, or he knows more or less. In this case, dominant males is a relative concept. It only needs that this males has some traits of being dominant. Not need to be a extreme case of dominance. Some persons can be genetically wired in their brain into being submissive. This would not be far off from becoming a bottom gay. Then as social constrictions made more difficult to have a heterosexual experience, the path to think in sexual terms playing with another member of the same gender is easier. The mere thinking of doing this is wiring your brain to become gay. You can imagine yourself serving a dominant male you know, as I had read in many gay stories in nifty. It is not a case so different to playing tennis. To play tennis someone has to push you gently into playing tennis. Not only once, but many times in a row. You have to be driven into playing softly and easily. If someone do this rightly, after some time of training you are becoming a tennis player of some quality. But you do not become a tennis player because one day you had a racket in you hand and hit a few times a ball. This is not enough exercise to wire your brain into becoming a player. But by playing tennis many times, during many hours and many days, many years, you become a player. This was possible because your brain was being wired to do that. Even thinking about playing tennis is reinforcing the wiring in your neurons. But it can be said, as someone told me one day, you have chose to become a tennis player. This is not a choice at all. It is a process of doing something. But you should not any of this unless you get the pleasant consequences of what are you doing. Then, only after having some training, enough training, you can go gladly to play tennis. The same can be said of a pianist. You cannot choose one day and tell yourself "I'm gonna be a pianist". There is not any way that could be happen. For becoming a pianist is a long and laborious endeavor. You are not going to play the damned piano unless a special teacher convinces you that you are very good hitting the keys of the piano with your fingers. So, in this case there is an agent controlling your behavior as a piano student. The more work you do playing the piano the best pianist you would be. This is possible, because all the wiring was done on your brain while your were playing. The case of being gay is little more complex. The number of experiences are not as numerous in the case of being gay when compared to playing the piano or playing tennis. But the pleasures involved in sex, either real or imagined, are much greater. I mean the pleasure of playing the piano, or playing tennis exists, but are weaker. Then, while you do not become a pianist by thinking you are playing the piano, being a gay different in the sense that you have a great deal pleasure by simply imagining you are doing something, without having any real experience of sex with a member of your same gender. Just by merely thinking of playing intimately with a member of your same gender is already producing some wiring your mind. So strong can the feelings involved in these sexual fantasies. Then, why having those fantasies with persons of the same sex and not of the opposite sex? This is difficult to explain. The most probably explanation could be it there is a much greater probability of body playing with a member of your same gender, like feeling or wrestling or something, playing one over the other in intimate contact, even if not sexual touching is involved. Then this happened because the segregation of sexes done by the norms of society. Other explanation can be we are social animals. As social animals of the same gender living together we could feel some degree of empathy for others members of the same sex. This had been observed in armies, monasteries, boarding schools, and other places where members of the same gender live in close proximity. Then as males being together you could be more attached to person as his friends than to the rest of males. This is part of being social and making limited alliances. This can be observed among primates. It has been observed many other mammals as well. There is another point, most mammal males do not breed at all their life. For reproduction is an exclusive for the dominant males. But humans are the most lustful of all mammals, for they can feel lust all the year long in a more or less marked degree, while most mammals do not. Then, the sexual stress among the males that are not allowed to breed, for they are segregated from the females, are too strong. Then, it is not any miracle at all that is so frequent to see cases of homosexuality among humans when compared with other animals. Then, while most instances of male herbivores mounting another males occur during the routing season, in humans the sexual lust occurs during the whole year but is more marked during summer. This is the season in which the mood is more optimist and takes more risks to play sex. I heard in a video, that most women only feel attracted to alpha males when they are in estrous, but prefer males to marry that have more a feminine outlook. It is suppose they think of this males as more responsable fathers, and more easy to control. I am trying to postulate that the concept of being gay is a complex phenomenon. It is not any easy to analyze.

It is always a problem a bad review. Not only a bad review, it is also a serious problem a less than enthusiastic review.

You are right about this, "Bullying is insidious. It can be physical harm that hurts but the emotional toll is often the worst." My focus is about how to solve the problem of this sensibility. I would try to "dis-sensibilize" her or him. If we put much attention on his hurting, comforting the child when he feels bad... we are not solving this problem. We should try an opposite way. Trying as a play to tease the child mildly and even play at boxing a little with the child to prepare him/her for the worse of social aversive rubbing. Just imagine a father that want to his boy would be a boxer. He would play with the boy boxing. He would become used at the hands moving in boxing attitudes before his face. To not frightening the boy the dad should comfort the boy by being so brave, and he would make the boy to smile with the play and so on. Then, an occasional light brushing of a hand on his face is expected in this play. The boy should be "reinforced" by enduring this brushing on his face, and so on. Then, summing up, we should encourage the child not to be scared with minor rubbing to start with. In advances stages of the teaching, the child should be able to take stronger rubbing, and mild slaps, hits and even insults. The child should have to learn to take this with a smile, showing not any distress at all. Then, the best way to make him/her so sturdy is to train the child at home. It is the best place to learn. I think, there are a lot of aggressive children, that are used at home to fight with friends and cousins. Perhaps, they are trained at home by parents that are harsh and are also aggressive with their children. Then, the best way is to harden the children at home to be able to take any intent of abuse lightly.

I think that people who harass or tease others are trying to feel happy watching the victim suffering the teasing. If the intended victim does not show any signs of distress the jokes looses its appeal and soon it stops. So, the most rational attitude is to teach the boy or girl not to be disturbed by these sort of jokes and teasing.