You should have stopped responding to him the moment that he said that you have to be born wrong to be evil. All he does is obfuscate the intuitive causes of things.
Take this, for example. Imagine trying to shame a guy for liking a goofy sovlful VN (I haven't personally played it) after spending half a dozen man-hours defending poopdick online.
I do suspect, though, that @Inco G. Nito suffers—or, charitably, has suffered—from a need for Reed. He needs neither confirm nor deny this.
Point is: anyone going to studies, worm-talk, evopsych modern-mythmaking, or other external explanations should all be ignored—even if well-meaning.
What matters are the mechanics of the forms of attraction themselves. It is incredibly obvious to anyone with any amount of experience in the "gay community" that wanting neoteny is normalized for them in a way that it just isn't for straight people outside of (maybe) the anime community. The way gays refer to grown men is like how weebs call grown women "hags", like it's just a distinct preference or something. Who do people like @Overachiever think they're lying to? Themelves? It doesnt deserve an argument.
Anyone invested enough to be willing to spend half a dozen unpaid hours in this thread running damage control for homos knows this.
The whole thrust of my original argument was actually steelmanning the gay position by not mentioning pederasty or anal at all. Even without those it's totally anti-human.
As a rule I don't like to argue with lesbians (nothing personal; it's just like trying to wrestle sand), but if I'm going to negrate I'm obligated to.
It's ironic that, while you're calling him a hypocrite, what you're doing here actually comes closer to the original definition of hypocrisy. Peak pharisaic behavior
You should have stopped responding to him the moment that he said that you have to be born wrong to be evil. All he does is obfuscate the intuitive causes of things.
which is funny. I'm more concerned at how Overachiever wants to institutionally teach little kids about gay people and sex, how he conveniently ignored the actually relevant example I offered of Desmond is Amazing, and then gave it one sentence of lip service when I called him out of it, and how he randomly brought up Victorian London out of actually nowhere with no relevance whatsoever to what we were talking about, just so he could go on and on about child prostitution. All I'm saying that if the statistics (which aren't relevant to the modern day because they are from the 90s and the 2000s he doesn't agree with them) he posted taught me anything, it's that gay people really like kids. But I don't know, I guess I'm just not enough of a radical optimist to ignore all of these glowing red flags lmao.
What matters are the mechanics of the forms of attraction themselves. It is incredibly obvious to anyone with any amount of experience in the "gay community" that wanting neoteny is normalized for them in a way that it just isn't for straight people outside of (maybe) the anime community. The way gays refer to grown men is like how weebs call grown women "hags", like it's just a distinct preference or something. Who do people like @Overachiever think they're lying to? Themelves? It doesnt deserve an argument.
Anyone invested enough to be willing to spend half a dozen unpaid hours in this thread running damage control for homos knows this.
Obviously the whole twink thing, wanting to look so young is to be a stand in for an effeminate underaged boy. And yes, they have to lie to themselves. Gay people don't know what security is, it's why they do insane mental loop-de-loops like:
War has degenerated modern masculinity to the point that enjoying any art other than the Bible/Quran and using separate towels for your face and ass is seen as gay or feminine.
because they can't imagine not being insecure, they have no life experience of security whatsoever... So, they project it onto everybody else. Shocker: normal people who aren't constantly on the verge of existential meltdown don't actually give a shit or place such bizarre obsessive sexual emphasis on media they watch or things they enjoy. And no, weird incel looksmaxxer Andrew Tate worshippers who (definitely) aren't gay don't count as normal straight people.
Edit: Also overachiever is Brazilian lmao
So you've just given up? Don't respond to an argument because it's too hard and uncomfortable? It doesn't take hours to criticize old papers and call an ex-coomer a furry. I am still responding because I do not believe it is right to call an entire group of people pedophiles. If Android Raptor wasn't banned, I would probably be sperging at her because it's fun. You can't have this shitty type of discussion anywhere else.
It is incredibly obvious to anyone with any amount of experience in the "gay community" that wanting neoteny is normalized for them in a way that it just isn't for straight people outside of (maybe) the anime community
I do not believe that the preference for neoteny is a uniquely gay issue. Nowadays, even the 40-year geologist Bjorn from Sweden is more likely to marry an 18-year old Thai girl than Birgit the nurse who's his age. There is a significant number of seemingly normal, straight men in the West who import young wives from Asian countries where women tend to look a bit more childlike. I do believe than this issue deserves more discussion and saying that it's just a "poopdick/pederast" problem only shuts down the conversation. Sorry for the low blow Snoot Game guy, but you haven't been exactly cordial either. I dislike how now you're insinuating that I want to teach little kids about subjects that are not appropriate for their age. Reproduction and sexuality should be studied in high school because they are a fundamental part of biology. Plants and animals both reproduce and the knowledge of the human reproductive system is important for any further studies in medicine. Homosexuality should be discussed as objectively and clinically as possible since it has been a part of psychology since before Freud. Similarly, I support the reintroduction of Greek and Latin in schools because children should have a well-rounded education even if it doesn't directly contribute towards their future earnings.
Because I agree, what else is there to discuss? His mother put him in the hands of groomers and his life will never be normal again. It's terrifying and I hope that the LGBT movement will temporarily abandon its tribalism to clearly denounce this.
You mentioned "previously functional traditions and institutions". I gave the example of Victorian London because it is often perceived to have had functional traditions and institutions with chastity seen as a basic virtue. Similarly, I mentioned Zweig because he wrote beautifully over culture with entire chapters dedicated to the youth and upbringing of men during the Belle Époque, another seemingly functional and virtuous time in history. Again, I ask you to mention when and where the traditions and institutions you mentioned were functional so we can have a serious, focused discussion.
because they can't imagine not being insecure, they have no life experience of security whatsoever... So, they project it onto everybody else. Shocker: normal people who aren't constantly on the verge of existential meltdown don't actually give a shit or place such bizarre obsessive sexual emphasis on media they watch or things they enjoy.
I don't believe this should be the case and I worry that the LGBT movement entrenched this attitude in even normal people. I don't like this development either because it made the arts poorer. I get sad when reading Zweig's recollections of how once even young boys were breaking into concerts so they could discuss the newest, most obscure artists during the school's lunch break. Arts would be better if normal men could participate in them without any worry and I think this would improve society in general. I love the opera personally and all of my introducés really enjoyed themselves despite previously thinking that it is only for the rich/pretentious/gays. Seeing so many people distance themselves from something so fun and beautiful out of fear of judgement makes me sad.
Deviant psychology, that is. It was a "part of psychology" in the way that incest and dog rape was. You're so dishonest it's actually sad. We already teach kids about it well enough by telling them not to talk to strangers like you. That's all the information they need.
Your direct intent is to predispose children towards the normalization of your fetish.
I do not believe that the preference for neoteny is a uniquely gay issue. Nowadays, even the 40-year geologist Bjorn from Sweden is more likely to marry an 18-year old Thai girl than Birgit the nurse who's his age. There is a significant number of seemingly normal, straight men in the West who import young wives from Asian countries where women tend to look a bit more childlike. I do believe than this issue deserves more discussion and saying that it's just a "poopdick/pederast" problem only shuts down the conversation.
If they genuinely look childlike those guys are nowhere near the norm. I already mentioned weebs. Other than that, you can't pretend that getting yellow fever for grown women is anything like the problem that the gays very publicly and obviously have, so I'm done.
I am shutting down the conversation, because you're just doing transparent poopdick pederast apologia.
Incest can result in the birth of troglodytes and dogs can’t consent to sex with people. Two homosexuals can consent to sex. Why are you being so obtuse?
“IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU’RE A RACIST/SEXIST/PEDOPHILE—“
Cut that shit out. You’re just mad there’s someone in the room who’s smarter than you who is actually willing to hold an intelligent debate outside of saying “homos bad” in pseudo-intellectual bullshit speak.
Two homosexuals can't reproduce and anal sex has a higher risk vector of disease.
Let me ask you something, why do you think homosexuality was considered immoral in MANY cultures? A lot of different cultures independently evolved the norms around long-term single pair bonding (marriage). It served a lot of purposes (knowing lineage, passing on ownership/wealth, continuation of the parent's legacy, etc.) Hollywood would have us believe the Greek were all gay and boy-fuckers. Although there may have been a significant amount of homosexuality during those times, it was not accepted by the Greeks , nor was it accepted by the Romans. Those are lies perpetuated by modern fiction. Homosexuality did happen, but society viewed it as a wrong.
There are reasons certain moral codes arise in society. You mentioned a reality about incest: the high amount of deleterious recessive traits causes a lot of birth defects. It makes sense we would develop morality around banning it. However, there are animal species that have been on the brink of extinction (<10,000) that bounce back and they obvious have to inbreed. They still get a lot of defects, but the offspring that survive are often cleansed of the worst traits. If humanity suffered a catastrophic event that dropped the global population to only a few million, the social mores around inbreeding would probably disappear in a desperate attempt to simply survive (and probably reappear, once the population grows large enough you'd have deleterious recessive traits grow).
It's like Chesterton's Fence. Can you at least explain why the fence against homosexual acceptance was there in the first place (even up to and including the 1980s and 90s in much of the world)? Why do you think it's okay to tear it down now and it wasn't before?
Bonus (if you can think critically): name the negative consequences of homosexual acceptance and the negative effects of gay marriage. (I'll give you a hint on one; it's something that's legal in the US/UK but banned in most of Europe, including Spain).
Let me ask you something, why do you think homosexuality was considered immoral in MANY cultures? A lot of different cultures independently evolved the norms around long-term single pair bonding (marriage). It served a lot of purposes (knowing lineage, passing on ownership/wealth, continuation of the parent's legacy, etc.) Hollywood would have us believe the Greek were all gay and boy-fuckers. Although there may have been a significant amount of homosexuality during those times, it was not accepted by the Greeks , nor was it accepted by the Romans. Those are lies perpetuated by modern fiction. Homosexuality did happen, but society viewed it as a wrong.
An aversion to faggotry is so universal, in fact, it failed to pass via referendum in California of all places in 2008, even though the gay rights movement had implemented heavy amounts of proto cancel culture, manufactured consent, and other forms of social engineering by then.
The fact that it could only pass via brute force via the courts, both then and in 2015, tells you all you need to know.
You’re just mad there’s someone in the room who’s smarter than you who is actually willing to hold an intelligent debate outside of saying “homos bad” in pseudo-intellectual bullshit speak.
Page 12: "Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14."
Seems like it probably would have made it even more clear LMAO
Page 13: "42% of the males were likely to never have disclosed the experience to anyone whereas 33% of the females never disclosed.", "Only 5.7% of the incidents were reported to the police; 26% of the incidents were not disclosed to anyone prior to the study."
Page 58:
Page 59:
Page 60:
It's a really good read and I recommend flipping through it.
But I forgot. This happened in the 50s and the 60s and the 2000s so it's old and therefore not representative of contemporary society. Also 200 years really isn't a long time.
The only intelligence in this debate went out the window when statistics suddenly became voldemort because giga brain overachiever posted a document that blatantly states that yes, homos are more likely to be pedophiles.
Because of 2 things: Tolerating homos is far far FAR more trouble than it was ever worth. And kids cannot consent. Therefore there is 0% reason to inundate them with your bizarre deviant fetish lifestyle. I have a question for the three of you: Let's say homos are more likely to be pedophiles. Through whatever mechanism, it doesn't matter for this hypothetical. Even if they are more likely to be, it shouldn't be such a point of contention for you three, right? I mean, you're all one of the good ones, right? With no need to defend yourselves on this particular front. Right?
Edit: Mobile spelling lol
Incest can result in the birth of troglodytes and dogs can’t consent to sex with people. Two homosexuals can consent to sex. Why are you being so obtuse?
Why am I referencing the actual position of the group that @Overachiever is dishonestly trying to squeeze an appeal to tradition—a famous logical fallacy—therefrom? Because it shows that his argument is incoherent. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him. He's the one implying that their models are sufficient to model out education systems after. You'd think he'd reference someone more contemporary and sympathetic, but that's between you and him.
This is what I meant by "wrestling sand", by the way. Lesbians seem to have trouble following arguments. Maybe it's not just lesbians, but it seems to be worse with them (at least on this website; I don't interact with many elsewhere). I believe that if you apply yourself you can change this perception.
Incidentally, while consent and population health may factor into specific moral arguments depending on the context, they aren't themselves sufficient to ground morality. The latter—population health—is actually an example of the naturalistic fallacy (at least as you're applying it, which is almost definitely through an evolutionary psychology perspective). I don't care about your arbitrary secular moralizing that just reduces to what you are and aren't comfortable with. You can't get an ought from an is.
I don't care about gay uncle hypotheses or any of your other modern mythology that gives post-hoc grand narrative justifications for your over-socialized sentiments. Oughts come from purpose, and purpose comes from agents that make things for purposes. Morality comes from above or it doesn't come at all—everything else is just habits of feeling.
That being said, we really don't need to go into "morality". The conversation is really about what does and doesn't satisfy the soul. Homosexuality is very clearly a disease of the soul.
I don’t understand what any of this means. What do you mean that women “engage through men”? What is the correlation between pregnancy and lack of creativity?
I'm glad that you asked. Refer to this post in this thread. I'll reproduce the most relevant heading, "The Eros", here:
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.
Women can be creative, but they don't need to be (to the same degree); they can get pregnant and reproduce/nurture an image of the world within themselves. Men struggle with the external world more, and in the process define the boundaries of the world that women operate in. Women don't enforce the borders, maintain the laws, or fight the wars. If they're involved, it's either in a token capacity or as middle-managers. This isn't a mark against them; it's just not their area.
Men consume the world more fully (through more fully struggling with it), and women consume the world through men (as an image, along with the degree to which they as women also struggle with the world). By "more fully", I don't mean more intensely: I mean with more variety—men experience a broader range of struggles by virtue of the fact that it's their responsibility to define and defend the boundaries of the inhabited world. I've heard it argued that women also have a supplementary role in perfecting and refining that world—this is where a lot of their creativity comes in, although it could be argued to be an extension of their creative nurturing faculty of which pregnancy is the in-principle core.
Men often have an a-social lust for the world that women are less likely, though not necessarily unable, to understand.
Struggling with the world is the same as consuming it or being impregnated by it, and the creative process is the reproduction of what you've consumed according to the pattern of what's innate in your individual personality. I'm saying that any potential deficits in women's ability to struggle—to be creative—compared to men is made up for by their direct consumption of men, and through pregnancy.
Monasticism is the other option (the creation—like man—being an image of the mind of God), but I'm not totally sure how that works for women compared to men yet. I've got some books by abbesses to finish.
Sex is ultimately about procreation.
About part of you continuing on, irrespective of your own mortality.
Which is why I think so many gay people fill their lives with meaningless bullshit and in particular sex. They know they can’t procreate, the intended result of sex, so instead they elevate the act of copulation itself to give their lives meaning.
But shit doesn’t work that way. You can’t make a whole out of a part of that whole, just like you can’t proudly announce that you have a car because you’re holding a steering wheel.
Which is why I think so many gay people fill their lives with meaningless bullshit and in particular sex. They know they can’t procreate, the intended result of sex, so instead they elevate the act of copulation itself to give their lives meaning.
The best case scenario is absurdism, which is where you get all these ironypilled movie critic homos masturbating to Scar from the Lion King and making it everyone else's problem.
The other route is to substitute death-force for life-force in the lizard brain, and make your sexuality potent towards hedonic antinomian annihilationism. This is why a lot of gay stuff is so weirdly gross and dark in tone, even for the subject matter. This tendency is part of why sex weirdos in general are the permeable membrane between normal society and the spook/secret society apparatus. A big part of that is obviously blackmail too, but there's more going on there above all that practical side. If you know you know
Two homosexuals can't reproduce and anal sex has a higher risk vector of disease.
Let me ask you something, why do you think homosexuality was considered immoral in MANY cultures? A lot of different cultures independently evolved the norms around long-term single pair bonding (marriage). It served a lot of purposes (knowing lineage, passing on ownership/wealth, continuation of the parent's legacy, etc.)
You partially answered your own question. I would also like to highlight that many of the known homophobic cultures were following an Abrahamic Faith. All of Europe was Christian, much of the Middle East became Muslim, and Judaism, where both these religions branches off from, is particularly homophobic. I surmise this was because Jews were an unsettled, nomadic group who had a lot of enemies who wanted them dead, and the best way to keep your numbers stable was enforcing gender roles, punishing men for wasting their seed to masturbation and Onanism, and vilifying people who don't reproduce (infertile women and homosexuals being these said people). There's also the fact that sexual intercourse can produce many diseases, several of which could have been a death sentence. Naturally, to cull back the spread of disease, these cultures established that sex should only be for baby-making. Fags don't have babies and are more likely to be promiscuous, so there's two reasons for these cultures disliking homosexuality. It probably worked well for the desert tribes, but for later cultures; no, not really.
Were there homophobic societies outside of the Abrahamic ones? Certainly. The Aztecs were extremely homophobic, so much so that gay men were punished by having their entrails ripped from their anuses, and gay women were flayed and beheaded. The Assyrians of Mesopotamia viewed homosexuality as egregious and could be a death sentence, these people also had an influence on Abrahamic beliefs so that's something to also keep in mind.
There were also many cultures through different time periods in their histories where they were accepting of homosexuality, such as China, who during certain periods were tolerant of it and even allowed gay marriage. Japan was also open to homosexual relationships, particularly in the Edo period, however this declined in tolerance as they became more Westernized. Most Polynesian societies were very accepting of homosexuals until the latter half of the 20th century when they, too became Westernized.
We do not have enough information on other advances civilizations such as Egypt to know what their stances on homosexuality were, but considering they went through several dynasties over a period of thousands of years, I wouldn't be surprised if their views on it were just as complex and ever-changing as most other civilized, long-lasting cultures.
There is also not enough information on cultures in which a written language was never developed, like Native American societies; it's almost all purely speculative, which is why I find the concept of 2Spirit to be rather dumb.
Hollywood would have us believe the Greek were all gay and boy-fuckers. Although there may have been a significant amount of homosexuality during those times, it was not accepted by the Greeks , nor was it accepted by the Romans. Those are lies perpetuated by modern fiction. Homosexuality did happen, but society viewed it as a wrong.
This is somewhat disingenuous. The Greeks and Romans interpreted sexuality differently than we do today. Both were fine with men having sex with other men, as long as it was the man doing the penetrating. The "bottom" was seen in a negative light, but not because Greeks and Romans thought they were gross, but because both cultures were so misogynistic and patriarchal that they regarded bottoms as being "effeminate/womanly". The most taboo sexual act in Roman society, in fact, was cunnilingus. Not only were you seen as being subservient in this role, but you were subservient to a woman. Sexual activity was considered an act of domination that the man had the right to instigate and perform whenever he pleased.
There are reasons certain moral codes arise in society. You mentioned a reality about incest: the high amount of deleterious recessive traits causes a lot of birth defects. It makes sense we would develop morality around banning it. However, there are animal species that have been on the brink of extinction (<10,000) that bounce back and they obvious have to inbreed. They still get a lot of defects, but the offspring that survive are often cleansed of the worst traits. If humanity suffered a catastrophic event that dropped the global population to only a few million, the social mores around inbreeding would probably disappear in a desperate attempt to simply survive (and probably reappear, once the population grows large enough you'd have deleterious recessive traits grow).
If the incestuous act is occurring between two cousins, their chances of having offspring with no birth defects is about the same as a couple who aren't related to each other, so you are actually correct on this. However if you have a brother and sister reproducing together, the risks are raised significantly.
It's like Chesterton's Fence. Can you at least explain why the fence against homosexual acceptance was there in the first place (even up to and including the 1980s and 90s in much of the world)? Why do you think it's okay to tear it down now and it wasn't before?
Religion was a large one. The Evangelicals gained a foothold in American politics during the Reagan administration, which only became amplified during the AIDS crisis. There was the belief that fags were "getting what they deserved" for having anal sex. I will also say that the gays themselves didn't present themselves well during the debacle either, as many of them refused to stop having unprotected sex when it became clear that AIDS was spreading throughout the bath houses.
Bonus (if you can think critically): name the negative consequences of homosexual acceptance and the negative effects of gay marriage. (I'll give you a hint on one; it's something that's legal in the US/UK but banned in most of Europe, including Spain).
Are you seriously insinuating that gay men are fucking dogs now? Monkeypox can be spread to dogs from them licking or pawing rashes on the skin of the infected individual.
You partially answered your own question. I would also like to highlight that many of the known homophobic cultures were following an Abrahamic Faith. All of Europe was Christian, much of the Middle East became Muslim, and Judaism, where both these religions branches off from, is particularly homophobic. I surmise this was because Jews were an unsettled, nomadic group who had a lot of enemies who wanted them dead, and the best way to keep your numbers stable was enforcing gender roles, punishing men for wasting their seed to masturbation and Onanism, and vilifying people who don't reproduce (infertile women and homosexuals being these said people). There's also the fact that sexual intercourse can produce many diseases, several of which could have been a death sentence. Naturally, to cull back the spread of disease, these cultures established that sex should only be for baby-making. Fags don't have babies and are more likely to be promiscuous, so there's two reasons for these cultures disliking homosexuality. It probably worked well for the desert tribes, but for later cultures; no, not really.
You sound like a mini-me Android Raptor sperging about religion lmao. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the tenets of Abrahamic faith ended up everywhere because by and large it just worked? No system is perfect, but some are blatantly superior to others and if cultures based in Abrahamic faith were able to last this long and continue well into the modern age in some form or another, that maybe, just maybe their approach to things is pretty damn functional? Also lmao at the implication that needing to cull the spread of disease is no longer a valid factor in the modern age of why homosex (and promiscuity in general) is bad. It feels like retards like you think the idea of homophobia just fell out of the sky etched on some stone tablet one day, and not that people had it figured out a long fucking time ago that it's far more trouble than it's worth and frankly homos are gross and I don't like being around them. Keep going in circles like this ignoring the blatant overwhelming reality around you and you'll start questioning if the wheel is really the best way to roll things around again.
Are you seriously insinuating that gay men are fucking dogs now? Monkeypox can be spread to dogs from them licking or pawing rashes on the skin of the infected individual.
This is veering off topic, but this is a good thing to bring up.
Society is EXTREMELY forgiving of abuse by women, especially if the woman is conventionally attractive or the victim was a teenager.
Society tends to also ignore or not see abuse by women the same way as abuse by men. This can lead to a slump in reporting or lack of care. Not to mention some countries have rape defined in such a way that a woman legally cannot be considered to have raped someone.
So is this slump because women don't do this, or because it's less reported, and tends to get less attention when it does happen?
I was thinking about this earlier and wanted to add my 2 cents. Wanting to have sex with an older woman as a young teenager is an almost universal fantasy. I wanted to do that when I was that age, you probably wanted to do that, basically everyone did. Comparatively, having sex with an underaged girl as an adult man is not a common sexual fantasy. It makes sense that a lot of men would be much more forgiving of the former because they themselves remember wanting to do exactly that. A lot of people don't consider how much actually having sex at such a young developmental age affects your brain development, reward systems, etc. Let alone if the sex was "consensual" or not. I also think a lot more people would be angrier the younger the boy was. I mean, we're talking about how this is still a bad thing right now, clearly it's recognized as such. That being said, men in general commit most sexual assault. Women would have a LOT of slack to pick up if they were actually committing their fair share of sexual assault against underaged boys as opposed to gay men.
Edit: Added clarity
Are you seriously insinuating that gay men are fucking dogs now? Monkeypox can be spread to dogs from them licking or pawing rashes on the skin of the infected individual.
From reports during the current monkeypox outbreak, 84% to 100% of cases have endorsed sexual activity, often with a new sex partner, before the development of monkeypox, providing evidence of a temporal association between sexual contact and the disease.
no amount of cope changes the fact that money pox is overwhelmingly an STD and is pretty much only found in gay and bi men. this is why the media shut up real quick about it when cases kept popping up in children and animals located in gay households
no amount of cope changes the fact that money pox is overwhelmingly an STD and is pretty much only found in gay and bi men. this is why the media shut up real quick about it when cases kept popping up in children and animals located in gay households
I wasn't actually denying monkeypox was a disease predominantly found around gay men, because it is, what I was calling into question was the claim that homos were having sex with dogs.
You sound like a mini-me Android Raptor sperging about religion lmao. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the tenets of Abrahamic faith ended up everywhere because by and large it just worked? No system is perfect, but some are blatantly superior to others and if cultures based in Abrahamic faith were able to last this long and continue well into the modern age in some form or another, that maybe, just maybe their approach to things is pretty damn functional? Also lmao at the implication that needing to cull the spread of disease is no longer a valid factor in the modern age of why homosex (and promiscuity in general) is bad. It feels like retards like you think the idea of homophobia just fell out of the sky etched on some stone tablet one day, and not that people had it figured out a long fucking time ago that it's far more trouble than it's worth and frankly homos are gross and I don't like being around them. Keep going in circles like this ignoring the blatant overwhelming reality around you and you'll start questioning if the wheel is really the best way to roll things around again.
The Abrahamic cultures proliferated as much as they did is because they put a taboo on masturbation, something coomers like yourself would have suffered from. When you prohibit self-pleasure, people are going to find a socially acceptable outlet for their lust, and in this case it would have been the opposite sex.
The Abrahamic cultures proliferated as much as they did is because they put a taboo on masturbation, something coomers like yourself would have suffered from. When you prohibit self-pleasure, people are going to find a socially acceptable outlet for their lust, and in this case it would have been a woman.
