Serious LGBT Discussion

[Omori Boy]

A normal person using a condom can take the condom off and have kids. A fag can't un-gay himself.

A fag can fuck a woman, or have kids via IVF.

Nor can a tranny such as yourself ever regain your balls.

Weird thing to start thinking of my balls. My balls are still attached to my body last I checked.

 

[Back To School]

I had no idea I was initally taking advice from a . I take back everything I said I’d rather side with the right wingers

 

[gang weeder]

A fag can fuck a woman, or have kids via IVF.

That's true, technically gays aren't sterile (unlike trannies such as yourself) and in fact there are plenty of cases of gays marrying and having kids in the normal fashion, to varying degrees of success. However, that plays into my viewpoint, which is that even if you are cursed with The Gay, you could still try and overcome it. Maybe it won't work out but you could at least give it a shot and try for the life you actually want instead of just giving up. It's what I would want to do if I were in that unfortunate position.

Your position, on the other hand, is that gays are fundamentally incapable of having normal marriages or families and shouldn't bother even trying. This is what I mean when I say gays are functionally sterile, as according to this narrative, gays can only have kids by the same means that an actual sterile person would have to take--surrogacy (which you reference as "IVF") or adoption.

So I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

[Arcade Gannon]

Best wishes to you all whether you’re a faggot or a hetero. Peace.

I had no idea I was initally taking advice from a . I take back everything I said I’d rather side with the right wingers

You didn't even make it 24 hours. I've seen roleplay forum flounces that lasted longer than that. If you think going away will help you, then actually go away.

 

[Back To School]

You didn't even make it 24 hours. I've seen roleplay forum flounces that lasted longer than that. If you think going away will help you, then actually go away.

I actually am not going to participate in this thread or talk about my homosexuality anymore I just found it funny that I was getting advice from someone who could be an autogynephile and wanted to common on that.

 

[Omori Boy]

That's true, technically gays aren't sterile (unlike trannies such as yourself) and in fact there are plenty of cases of gays marrying and having kids in the normal fashion, to varying degrees of success. However, that plays into my viewpoint, which is that even if you are cursed with The Gay, you could still try and overcome it.

Gay couples can have kids. How lovely. Just remember, they're sticking their penises in each others anuses.

Your position, on the other hand, is that gays are fundamentally incapable of having normal marriages or families

In several messages I've talked about gay people having traditional relationships, only you and the other retards only ever brought up hook-ups.

-surrogacy (which you reference as "IVF") or adoption.

I still think being gay is normal. Cry more.

I actually am not going to participate in this thread or talk about my homosexuality anymore I just found it funny that I was getting advice from someone who could be an autogynephile and wanted to common on that.

You still gonna take advice from the cis guys?

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

I had no idea I was initally taking advice from a . I take back everything I said I’d rather side with the right wingers

I and other people outside of the tranny furfag were more than willing to talk to you and get you to seek help, but I guess shutting yourself in and circle-jerking about how miserable you are with Reddit and 4chan rejects must be more satiating for your victim complex.

 

[Back To School]

I and other people outside of the tranny furfag were more than willing to talk to you and get you to seek help, but I guess shutting yourself in and circle-jerking about how miserable you are with Reddit and 4chan rejects must be more satiating for your victim complex.

I was being facetious with that comment. I’m very thankful for those on the accepting/left leaning side who reached out and offered me advice, I should’ve made that clear in my post you quoted. Everyone’s kindness inspired me to book an appointment with a trauma-based therapist next week and motivated me to avoid looking at anti-gay statistics/rhetoric that would bum me out and fuel my negative emotions surrounding my orientation. I just had no idea that one of the people on the pro-gay side was a furry who denies the concept of ROGD and now I regret taking their advice (but I don’t regret taking everyone else’s), that’s all lmao.

 

[nyymit]

I was being facetious with that comment. I’m very thankful for those on the accepting/left leaning side who reached out and offered me advice, I should’ve made that clear in my post you quoted. Everyone’s kindness inspired me to book an appointment with a trauma-based therapist next week and motivated me to avoid looking at anti-gay statistics/rhetoric that would bum me out and fuel my negative emotions surrounding my orientation. I just had no idea that one of the people on the pro-gay side was a furry who denies the concept of ROGD and now I regret taking their advice (but I don’t regret taking everyone else’s), that’s all lmao.

Just rememker, you can't pray the gay away. Only troon it away.

Make the right choice

 

[Jarl Varg]

I think @Back To School and the other fags on this thread need the gay beaten the fuck out of them.

 

[Gremperor]

The second I stop looking at the thread a tranny and a dude that jerks of to drawings of children move in to groom the guy questioning his sexuality, that's the most LGBT thing I've ever seen.

 

[JamusActimus]

It's an interesting question. If your homosexuality is Sa related, should you accept it or repress it?

As a cis heterosexual male, I don't rule out I could have become gay if I had been sexually abused multiple times. Sexual abuse can really fuck up people. I heard and seen stories of people that are so mind fucked that they end up "liking" it and seeking pedos. Obviously some people end up being disgusted by the opposite sex because of the abuse.


Could you heal? Were you gay in the first place? If you enjoy having sex with men, should you dig deeper? If you have 0 attraction to women, should you try?

Imo you don't lose anything in taking a step back and seeing how Sa has affected your sexual orientation and life.

 

[JamusActimus]

Imo you don't lose anything in taking a step back and seeing how Sa has affeted your sexual orientation and life.

Also to be clear it could also work the other way around.

You could present yourself as a heterosexual but you're been abused by a man, making you disgusted of the male body and men in general when you're actually gay.
Trauma, healing and sexual orientation work in mysterious ways.

 

[Faggy Blanket]

@Back To School I empathize with your condition. I don't have anything else to say other than to please get off KiwiFarms and see a shrink, since you clearly have issues other than your homosexuality. If you're scared of a pozzed therapist, lead with your history of sexual assault and how it's affecting your life. Many heterosexual men have been SA'd by men and have similar issues with hypersexuality, fetishes, etc. and you need to figure that shit out.

And for the love of god, don't cut off your family. I understand that you're trying to cut out sources of gay normalization (like your sister's wedding), but you're gonna fucking regret that decision. You're on KF (and surely other places on the internet) trying to get strangers to tell you you're disgusting and validate your negative feelings about other homosexuals, in an effort to "scare you straight/celibate". That tells me you're weak-willed and have self-esteem and self-control issues and need others to tell you what to do. These are flaws that are independent of your sexuality. Talk to a shrink about these flaws too. Unless you figure out how to change your anxious, negative mindset, you're never gonna stop obsessing over your sexuality and may even end up hurting yourself or someone else.

And you don't have to answer this question, but how old are you? I was a late bloomer and thought I was 100% gay until I was about 16 or 17. As I matured, my ambivalence and platonic feelings for women morphed into sexual ones, to the point where I hardly think about men anymore. I've also heard of this happening to heterosexuals in the reverse way as they hit middle age. Maybe it has something to do with hormones, maybe I'm just personally fluid. Don't hold out hope that it'll happen to you, but maybe it will give you comfort as you work on your other issues.

I can tell that you are a very obsessive autist over this topic, but you can learn to change that mindset. With love, please get the fuck off Kiwifarms, you fucking faggot.

 

[California Newt]

I'm arguing for a broader view or Eros divorced from the sex drive. I think that what we understand as the "gay" ethos is made both limited and evil by its presence and confinement within sexuality (where it produces no life), which I see as both a product of historical circumstance and active manipulation by the powers that be.

It's a hodgepodge of edited together posts from elsewhere on this site, plus some new stuff sprinkled in.

The main components of sexuality are the eros, the pleasure, and the lizard-brain sense of life-force.

The Eros:

Spoiler: The Eros

C.S. Lewis has a great book called "The Four Loves", where (among other things) he distinguishes “philia” from “eros”. The former is capital "F" Friendship (or comradery based on similarity of goal and soul), and the latter is best described as the desire to consume a person. He makes a big deal about the distinction, trying very hard to be clear that philia is not gay and totally distinct from eros. I think he goes too far.

Heterosexual men are very outwardly-oriented creatures. They tend not to really make the intuitive connection between the outward world and their inward world. They don't think about the link between the aesthetic of what they're pursuing, and the isomorphic corresponding potency within themselves that allows and motivates them to engage and succeed in that pursuit. They don't understand that the things they love are a holographic projection of themselves, and that a woman might prefer the source over the projection.

This is why poets all come off as at least a little gay—their job is to connect those dots. Men love each other fraternally for the same reason that women love men romantically—the difference is that men see it as "Oh, cool. This guy gets it." The man always conceptualizes it as a mutual interest in a third thing that's located out in the macrocosm, rather than in something within the microcosm of the other guy. At most, such as in a mentorship relationship, it's something that comes through the other guy from the macrocosm. Masculine intercommunion is praxeological rather than physical.

The emotions might even be many of the same ones as in a romantic relationship, but they're never understood, mentally categorized, or expressed in that way. The medium of the interaction is always the outer world.

The only exception is religious worship of a figure taken to be the source of the macrocosm, who Himself is understood to project the universe into being in the same kind of holographic fashion. Ordinary hero-worship doesn't even count, as the fantasy there is usually to play the big game with the guy—religious worship, on the other hand, involves a direct personal communion of the deity (the microcosm-as-source-of-macrocosm). In many religions, such as Christianity, this is even a physical (although non-sexual in this case) communion as well as a spiritual one.

As much as he might want it, a man can't take the physical seed of another in the way that a woman can; the only form of real communion available between men is through each other's talents. Even if you take a sort of microcosm-approach with another man, competition and collaboration are still the best (and only real) ways to explore him. When two men have sex, what's happening is an immanentized ritual interaction with the man's body as a symbol of those talents within him. It's not as real—it's a kind of cargo cult.

It's also heavily incestuous: it overwrites the higher with the lower, and that's where the instinctual disgust (that must be traumatized out or else simply worn away through porn consumption) comes from in heterosexual men. You have this great thing and want to recontextualize it into this shadow; this dead nothing. It should make you feel bitter in the chest. When everything's seen as inherently dead, though, then nothing is—hence this sort of thing proliferates.

That'll be discussed in greater detail in the life-force heading.

A lot of the men who get into this stuff are guys who have personality defects and can't collaborate or compete with other men in a normal way; others are shallow narcissists. It isn't only neutered physically, but also spiritually.

Pleasure:

Spoiler: The pleasure

The principle of athletic pleasure is where all simple pleasures in life come from, when you think about it: whether in exercise, sex, food, music, or anything else, pleasure is really an oscillation between tension and release; pleasure is maximized at the peak of our capacity to bear tension, and at the subsequent catharsis of the release that follows.

Tension only becomes pain, really, when it exceeds our pain-tolerance threshold—before that point, it's only pleasurable tension: it's pleasurable to scratch an itch or lift a heavy-but-manageable weight; it's painful to slice your skin open or throw out your back struggling to lift a piano.

The sexual form of tension-and-release is not the most potent or intense form—as adrenaline junkies and gambling addicts could probably tell you. The only thing that it really has going for is the deep place that it occupies in the lizard-brain, which brings us to:

The Lizard-Brain and Life-Force:

Spoiler: Immortality vs. nihilistic coping

Human beings, like moths to light, are drawn to psychological assurances against death.

Today, the only 'material' and 'real' way for the average person to satisfy their desire to conquer death and become in a sense "immortal"—according to contemporary materialism—is by having kids. The institutionally promoted way, though, is to exploit the lizard-brain to produce feelings of life-generation through various forms of sexuality: the goal isn't to become "immortal", but to become "self-actualized" and life a "full life".

Sex is not only a shortcut to feelings involved in the athletic-creative process, but also to feelings of life-generation. Sex is a cheat-code for activating subjective feelings of vitality—this is partly because of our biology, but the centrality of sex to the post-Darwin worldview colors all of our experiences and influences how we categorize them. I think that this latter influence is the main reason for why gay men think that a non-sexual relationship is somehow a "downgrade", as though all other forms of creative-athletic bonding are steps downward from the lofty heights of sexuality.

This is a false and destructive way to look at things; even though gay sex can't produce life, gay men still automatically equate sex with a fulfilled and vital life due to the structures of thought and categorization that they're grown up immersed in.

It's a totally arbitrary bias to begin with, but let's go deeper into the historical context.

I think it's important to remember that sexuality as the only vehicle for satisfying the human requirement for immortality is an almost exclusively early-modern phenomenon. It started in the West with the Protestant Reformation, when Luther got rid of monasticism—although you could argue that this was a reaction to the Roman Catholic devaluation and forgetfulness of the authentic Christian mystical tradition (which was already deteriorating in Western Europe before the Great Schism, but accelerated afterwards).

The problem with this is that, while in theory it still has a place for non-reproductive immortality in its worldview, the average person doesn't have a way to participate in that active immortality-process outside of sexuality anymore once ascesis has been removed. In the authentic tradition, life-force and virtue-force are seen as the same thing in a way: "give blood, receive the Spirit". Sexuality is in many ways a lower reflection of ascesis, and Western Christianity gradually lost this as a core part of its experienced tradition.

Prior to this (and inconsistently afterward, though not in a mainstream capacity in the West), every civilization has had its ascetics, celibates, and mystics. Many of these traditions—such as Jewish Kaballah, Hindu Kundalini yoga, and Taoist alchemy—tried to reach or realize their immortality through the manipulation and transmutation of sexual energies: examples of such energies are nefesh (in Kaballah), prana (in Hinduism), and Qi (in Taoist alchemy). In Christianity, rather than transmute created sexual energies, the Holy Spirit gives the life-force directly from outside of the created machinery of sexuality—that being said, the common thread through most of these societies has been the idea that sexual reproduction, while not necessarily evil, is a lower path than the mystical (and often a material analogy and reflection of it).

After Luther dethroned monasticism, and around the time that Deism began to degenerate into Atheism, Charles Darwin re-oriented all of life to center around the sexual drive: in his system, every functional part of the human being—including his psychology or "soul"—is there to help him reproduce.

Less than half a century later, you got Freud (who reduced everything to infantile sexuality)—as well as the sexologists' (particularly Krafft-Ebing's) invention of the category of the "Homosexual". Even French pedophiles like Foucault could tell you how sex-obsessed Europe and America became during the period from the Counter-Reformation up to the twentieth century, finding all kinds of excuses to "multiply discourses" on it and develop their own "science of sexuality".

Today's evolutionary psychologists continue in the ethos of Freud in reducing the human being to a sexual automaton, while today's "queer theorists" continue the work of the nineteenth-century "sexologists" who kickstarted the modern pantheon of "sexual identities". Both of these—while you could argue that evopsych has some legitimate insights—are examples of modern myth-making disguised as rigorous scientific disciplines.

Speculating that men and women's psychological differences arose because men had to fight bears and women had to pick berries is no different from uncontacted tribes talking about how men and women are different because the gods split the primordial hermaphrodite in two or whatever: we weren't there; they're both examples of people telling stories to explain the world around them using the limited categories of thought and experience available to them. It says more about us and how we view things than it does about where we came from.

Queer theory—and the whole "lgbtqia+" as a concept—is religious initiatory psychology applied to deviant sexuality: it posits that your "true self" is hidden and that you need to "uncover" or "realize it" through the particular deviant practice you've chosen (or, alternatively, been given by the group) as your "identity". For them, your "gender" occupies the same same space as the "buddha nature" or "image of God" (not to conflate those two, of course) in other traditions.

All of this, I believe, is to collapse creative and mystical psychology into the sexual drive. I don't even mean in a reproductive sense: I mean purely in the sense of exploiting the lizard-brain to produce life-feelings in lieu of any real hope of enduring life. People don't look for immortality anymore: they look for "self actualization" and take anti-depressants.

Conclusion

I recognize that the things that I've done with men and women are evil.

I do not, that being said, regret the dynamics of the creative process (the real super-structure of eros) that I've been able to explore with them through this, nor to I regret being able to see them with their walls down in pure (though neutered) self-expression. If the dynamics of what we call "sexuality" are allowed to be taxonomically imprisoned within the life-negating confines of modern neutered "sex", however, it is a sign of the total subjugation, slavery, and eventual ultimate murder of the human spirit.

 

[JamusActimus]

Why is homosexuality so visible?

Like why an I tell of someone is a faggot that easily?
Why does the gaydar exist?

 

[Ted's Moustache]

Why is homosexuality so visible?

I was able to tell who all of my gay coworkers were on day 1. They put out some kind of psychic broadcast lmao. It's hard to generalize though. There's a laundry list of patterns I associate with being gay, but in reality they come in different combinations of these patterns.

A few easy ones to pick up on are obviously things like walking on their toes with a bouncy step and having the body language of an insecure aristocrat. Other gays are designed for stealth, but it doesn't take long to notice when having a conversation with them. It's all in the mannerisms. They also pretty consistently have "scared prey eyes" for lack of a better term - that one's a pretty common trait among perverts in general though. It's like you're about to uncover their big secret or something.

 

[GunCar Gary]

Why is homosexuality so visible?

Like why an I tell of someone is a faggot that easily?
Why does the gaydar exist?

the uncanny valley effect?

Mate selection: Automatic, stimulus-driven appraisals of uncanny stimuli elicit aversion by activating an evolved cognitive mechanism for the avoidance of selecting mates with low fertility, poor hormonal health, or ineffective immune systems based on visible features of the face and body that are predictive of those traits.

Pathogen avoidance: Uncanny stimuli may activate a cognitive mechanism that originally evolved to motivate the avoidance of potential sources of pathogens by eliciting a disgust response.

Sorites paradoxes: Stimuli with human and nonhuman traits undermine our sense of human identity by linking qualitatively different categories, human and nonhuman, by a quantitative metric: degree of human likeness.

Violation of human norms: If an entity looks sufficiently nonhuman, its human characteristics are noticeable, generating empathy. However, if the entity looks almost human, it elicits our model of a human other and its detailed normative expectations. The nonhuman characteristics are noticeable, giving the human viewer a sense of strangeness.

 

[HootersMcBoobies]

Why is homosexuality so visible?

I think it's all learned behavior, and it's all very modern. Now I'm wondering if gays in the 1920s/30s could somehow identify themselves to each other. There's little depiction of gays in media from that time. I suspect the mannerism we associated now may have been present in other civilizations; not exact mannerism but more of a general effeminate personality.

Leather Apron Club has two videos where he attempts to dispel the myths of homosexual acceptance in the ancient Greek and Roman world:

https://odysee.com/@LeatherApronClub:c/black_bars_gay_greeks:e

https://odysee.com/@LeatherApronClub:c/gay_romans_final_with_fixes:5

I don't entirely buy Leather Apron Club's arguments. I do agree that homosexuality in the ancient world is sensationalized in modern Hollywood media, and that it likely wasn't accepted en mass. But I think it was likely common, and hidden. Why else would there be so much writing against all kinda of sexuality immorality, like the Apostle Paul's letters?

It's really difficult to get insight into the ancient world though, since we don't have a lot of writings from common folk. I'm not sure if our current era will fair better since so much writing has been censored or is behind walled gardens.

 

[HootersMcBoobies]

Gay couples can have kids. How lovely

Surrogacy is its own evil. Many European countries ban "egg donation" (it's weird we call it "donation" when the women are being paid) and surrogacy. A lot of people in Spain were upset when Ana Obregón paid for a surrogate overseas since it's illegal in her home country.

Jennifer Lahl has done some excellent talks/podcast interviews about just how terrible surrogacy is, like in this interview:

The drugs they give women to harvest eggs are really harsh, and there have been no studies on them and long term health effects. They may cause cancer in some women. I've known two women who went through the process and both said it was brutal.

Speaking on the guy in the image, Dave Rubin, this guy wrote about the problems of gay surrogacy in the article No Allies Who Buy Babies, in The American Conservative:

archive: https://archive.is/YYa0y

original: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/no-allies-who-buy-babies/

Do a search for "woman forced abort baby surrogacy," and you'll find dozens of stories over the years that show how women are forced to give up so many legal rights when they become surrogates. It's super weird as surrogacy/IVF is paraded by the far-left while they also advocate for body autonomy (except for vaccines .. but I'm getting off topic).

Surrogacy is human trafficking. It's somehow okay to sell a baby before its born, but not afterwards.

I don't think children raised by homosexuals will be well adjusted. There is a massively different dynamic between men and women, and children learn a lot more from heterosexual parents navigating conflict. Lesbians are prone to high levels of domestic violence. I think its' likely the majority of gays abuse their children.