Comments by "John G Williams" (@johnwilliams8818) on "Institute of Human Anatomy"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jimharrington6300 So you do not consider this blathering? This entire reply is hot air and rhetoric at best. And I assure you, I am not left-wing, left-leaning, or left-hanging.
I do hope you put as much effort into actually educating others about the facts of life as you do into writing these very long, very repetitive, and rather tiresomely boring short stories.
Writing a lot of words does not equate to facts; facts do not care about anyone's opinions; your opinions are based on your feelings, and feelings are not facts either. The only thing you have shown in all of this storytelling is that you don't agree with me, you think your opinions are better than mine, you don't know me, I don't know you, and we probably wouldn't even want to know each other. But the bottom line is, Who cares?
1
-
1
-
@Gorgonzeye Exactly! Where have I ever suggested I believe otherwise?
Remember the topic of this video and the original post? It was about transplanting one head to a different body. And what would the person whose head it was do if it was transplanted onto a body that had a different sex than their original?
This, btw, is why I have been having so much fun with the conversations here. This was a tongue-in-cheek video, which the guys probably did to stimulate silly engagement and conversation based on the "currently" ludicrous idea that we could ever transplant one head to another body.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the topics this video opened up in conversation have been, IMO, rather fun. And the fact that some people are applying such deeper meaning, a deeper cause, or suggesting a hidden agenda? Is again, IMO, rather telling with regard to the social divide.
People need to lighten up and realize that sometimes the "Duck Theory" is all that matters. Its just a duck, nothing but a duck, there is no other meaning than duck, and we're just talking about the duck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnwest6690 They key term you are using is "Influence". Everyone is subjected to influences that shape their likes and dislikes. But they are not the driving instinct. They are what shape and mold distinct tendencies, not core instincts.
I know countless people who claim they "know" what makes someone "become gay" who are not gay themselves, so have zero firsthand knowledge of what they speak of to build their hypothesis.
Being homosexual is not something a person "becomes", you either are or you are not. Personal influences might contribute to someone being somewhere in the middle. this is true, but it is not the core driving instinct, it is a choice made.
I developed a crush on my best friends older brother, we became friends at 5 years old and were inseparable growing up. When I was 15 she went to a family reunion out of town that her brother couldn't attend.
The short story? He manipulated me into thinking he had "feelings" for me, used that to lure me to a private place, and had a surprise waiting for me. He and two of his "buddies" raped me over two days.
That "trauma" caused me to avoid my friend, how do you tell your best friend her brother did this? My shame and pain and fear caused me to erupt on her for not leaving me alone, and I destroyed her publicly in front of schoolmates.
I attempted suicide and damn near succeeded, spent a month in a psychiatric hospital... I survived, it caused issues, but it DID NOT influence me NOT to be gay. Trauma affects you, and it may affect aspects or emotions or desires, but it doesn't build your core instincts.
Anymore than a newly born puppy being raised by nothing but cats makes it into a kitten or teaches it to meow instead of bark. That is not how "Core Instincts" work. Nor is that how influence, trauma, or surroundings work.
1
-
@johnwest6690 You should read my perspective on how its not just that Men are from mars and Women are from Venus. Which "explains" or provides context into the physical manifestations of the two sexes.
But how that needs a part two, "Men run on Windows and Women run on Linux". To provide contextual insight into how different Operational systems might perform similar functions, but use entirely different "coding" to get there.
Do you know that all mammalian embryos start out female? Which is why the males of all mammalian species have nipples?
Yet "man" has determined they were "First" (adam) and that God is therefore represented as a "Male"? Yet that makes entirely zero sense in the context of only the females can reproduce life, that all life is female "first" and that if logic were to be applied? God would need to be "Female" in order to create all life, as God make us in God's own image.
Then God said, "My creation cannot have the same power to create life as I do..." So split the ability to create life into two, creating Adam from Eve as a separate entity and making it so that 'HE" would be the stronger protector of "Her" while she was vulnerable incubating a new life.
I only mention this as my conclusion to highlight how easily man, who was "made" to be the stronger dominant hunter/protector, has taken that role to the extreme and IMO interpreted reality in such a manner that makes them "first".
When the reality is quite different, simple, elegant in its design if you will, and that we were intended to be imperfect beings. That with that imperfection comes unintended circumstances that are only made difficult to comprehend because we, as imperfect beings, are incapable of accepting the easier, more logical answer, instead of overthinking the obvious and moving on to the next challenge.
I believe that there is ONE GOD with infinite faces, that religion is the cultural manifestation of our need to comprehend purpose and to define that meaning into what is turned into a more complex subject than necessary due to our inherent tendency to overthink things.
Mine is a long explanation for a simple fact. We are all born to be what we were intended to be. Imperfections and all. It's not that complicated to believe that when the spark "soul" (battery) that powers the unique "life" is first inserted, and the brain, "Bios" (Operating System) firsts powers up and wakes the hardware (wetware) up for the very first time, that there will never be a time where a miscommunication occurs.
Causing hardware configured and designed for the Windows Operating system to be setup and run by the Linux OS, that is compatible, but coded to operate the system of a different setup with different hardware.
I can only speak for myself, but I have always been gay, I am biologically (physically) a male anatomically. But the operating system, how all the hardware works and interprets the world, makes it so that I see and experience things psychologically as a female would.
Do you know why heterosexual men are really uncomfortable around homosexual men? Truly... Because when they imagine intercourse? They are programmed to be the inserters, not the insertee's. They are not psychologically equipped to "imagine" how homosexuals actually think about sex.
If homosexuals "thought" about or "Viewed" sexual intercourse the same as their biological sex does? They would not be homosexual.
On a more Ha Ha note (if you've read this far? Thank You!)... Do you know what the first question is that all heterosexual men eventually ask me is?
1.) Is it true when two men have sex that one is the "Man" and one is the "Woman"?
Followed by (if they have the courage)...
2.) Which one are you?
Let that sink in for a minute... All gay men are the same, we are penetratee's, not penetrators. Some have accepted that if they wish to be penetrated? They must reciprocate by "being" a penetrator. But I can assure you, 99.9% of all gay men deep down are penetratee's and do not look at other men and think "I'd like to penetrate" that. That is not how it works at all.
1
-
@johnwest6690 To your last point, for the most part yes. I am a often looked at by other gay men as an "Oddity".
While I find other gay men physically attractive, I am NOT attracted to their minds (personalities). I like heterosexual men because they are complete men.
I don't want Martha Steward or June Cleaver wearing a man suit. I also do not care what particular sub genre a gay man ascribes to, I'm just John, I am not defined by anyone's categories. My experiences with various subcultures (gay, hetero, S&M, B&D, Leather, etc.) Is that those people have had exposure to things (traumas, surroundings, etc.) which have created emotional associations with various ideals or things.
For example. I person who has never felt a strong close "love" with a human, but who has been smothered with it by a favorite pet... Might develop a sense of sexual attraction to said animal. They know its wrong, but still fantasize about it, so... Become "Furries".
Or a person who has been exposed to a dominant personality might create strong association with desire of and pleasure from someone taking a dominant posture over them.
I was introduced at a young age, which some suggest made me gay (nonsense) and as a result of exposure during formative years, developed a "belief" that making friends included sex. I avoided friendships with women because sex felt "wrong" and sought out friendships with men, by offering sex.
As a result I had a very promiscuous youth/ young adulthood, still have issues with it at 57. But that is an entire novel in itself. Growing up I became convinced that the only reason men wanted anything to do with me was because they wanted sex.
So it made making real friends impossible, because I never actually learned how to, as stupid as that may sound. I am always looking for the underlying reason why someone is being nice to me or expressing any friendly gestures.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1