Serious LGBT Discussion

[California Newt]

It's actually not less testosterone. I misremembered:

• The Leading Theory: The Maternal Immune Hypothesis. The predominant scientific explanation for the FBOE is not about testosterone production but about a maternal immune response. The theory, proposed by Dr. Ray Blanchard, posits the following:

1. A male fetus produces proteins specific to the Y-chromosome that a female’s body does not.
2. During pregnancy or childbirth, some of these male-specific proteins can enter the mother's bloodstream. Her immune system may recognize them as foreign and create antibodies against them.
3. With each successive male pregnancy, this immune response can become stronger.
4. In subsequent pregnancies, these maternal antibodies may cross the placental barrier and influence the brain development of the male fetus, specifically in regions related to sexual orientation.

• Evidence: This isn't just a theory; there is concrete biological evidence. A 2017 study in PNAS found that mothers of gay sons, particularly those with older brothers, had significantly higher levels of antibodies to a Y-linked protein called NLGN4Y than mothers of heterosexual sons.

Conclusion: The original commenter who suggested a physiological cause ("less testosterone") was closer to the scientific consensus than the author of the response. The mechanism is understood to be biological and developmental, not a calculated evolutionary strategy. While the ultimate evolutionary reason is still debated, any credible theory must align with this immunological evidence, which the author's hypothesis does not.

In my blind rage against evolution-posting, I missed this part of your post. That's interesting if true.

This is clearly the closet case and self hating sperg thread, stop showing up with logical takes

Why would we hate ourselves for having aspergers?

Joking aside, this guy does have a point. I kind of assumed that @Hooked on phobics was probably the only true blue 100% heterosexual in this thread*. If we're all just a bunch of ambiguously fruity (or formerly fruity, like @BIG SHOT Autos) men and women talking about how awful homosexuality is and the consequences of all those gross disgusting acts, it does get kinda goofy—which is why when I wander back in here these days I just point back to pre-modern (read: pre-19th-century-invention-of-the-category-of-the-homosexual) relationships among and between the sexes.

I'm beating a dead horse and need to find more examples, but I'm gonna once again post from St. Gregory the Theologian's Oration 43 (for the funeral of St, Basil the Great)—at least it's one I don't think I've posted in here before:



Bro, what? Imagine someone saying this to you, man.

A bit more context (plus analysis from Allison Rapp's "Brother-Making in Late Antiquity and Byzantium", which is a direct secular academic refutation of John Boswell's "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"):



—Two of the three "Cappadocians" (the third being St. Basil's brother, also named Gregory) famous for expressing the Trinitarian theology used for the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (better known as just "the creed"), by the way.​

Looking into this sort of thing is way more constructive and interesting than being stuck in some kind of purgatorial asura-plane, contantly "warring against" (read: feeding attention to) the "gay" framework. But I let myself get suckered back in by the siren song of arguing about evolution online.

Back to the Star Trek thread, for me.

*I didn't mean to pooh-pooh @Hooked on phobics too hard earlier. Also the Alan Watts posting reminded me of this:

Spoiler: Fr. Seraphim Rose's opinion of Alan Watt's, as a former student

Before his conversion, Fr. Seraphim Rose studied Eastern languages and philosophy. He was one of Alan Watts' students for a while when he taught in the Bay Area. He had some interesting thoughts about him:



Taken from "Orthodox Survival Course", which is a series of transcribed lectures that took place at the St. Herman of Alaska Monastery. They were mainly about the progress of nihilism from the Middle Ages through the 1970's, with special attention to philosophy and the revolutionary movements of the 18th and 19th century. Pdf attached for anyone interested.

 

[Twix Eatr]

Look how they turned out. I get what you're saying about confronting uncomfortable realities, but I don't think that means we should follow the Boomer King and GigaGoy Prime and "integrate our shadows" or whatever (not that that's your point).

I don't know much about Alan Watts, but Jordan was awesome and delightfully insightful about much in the early days. He called out woke bullshit with tons of expertise and had the spine to stand on principle for all of it. He seems different now that he got hooked on opiates or w/e and was in a coma or something.

Personally I'm not interested in helping Foucault posthumously complete his project of incarnating his paedo-sadistic antichrist porno-theology, but maybe that's just me.

Is that what you see happening here? To me, my post is planning the best course of defense against what is clearly a present and looming threat. We're barely hanging on with queer theorists destroying our public institutions. Normal, decent people can't even fathom wtf is going on. I don't care to read Foucalt and the other gay diddlers manifestos, but it's worth being able to point normies to how many Queer Theory pioneers were chomos.

Yeah, but do you think people support child transitions because they can't intuit the arguments against it? They're just not capable of that—all of those literate, educated people? They don't want to understand. Nobody needs a scientific explanation for why they shouldn't rape toddlers.

tl;dr: I agree with nearly all of what you're saying, but I think your assessment is slightly misaligned to miss the utility of the arguments. Mainly, certain information is only good for certain people. Pedos need the bullet, but manipulable normie females might need more to show they're being manipulated. If they still don't get it, they get the bullet, too!

You seem to be ping-ponging back-and-forth between who support gender ideology vs. deviants raping kids, as well as the general public eating it up vs. those propagating the deviancy. It also goes back-and-forth between regular LGB and QT+ sickos.

Yes, I know for sure that those involved in transing their kids can be caught up in this as useful idiots. TPTB had to install ideologues to overtake our most trusted institutions to do it, but alas, here we are. We have detransitioners ITT who were caught in the mess.

Do I think that troons hacking up kids, pedophiles working with WPATH, or the misogynists battering women at their events are simply receiving different information than us? No, of course not. I'm not trying to educate pedophiles on why their attraction is wrong or to "help" child molesters abuse less.

I am, however, very worried for the upcoming pushes to normalize "minor-attracted persons" and elicit sympathy for their "sexual orientation." When the public can be convinced that boys actually are girls, it gives me serious alarm. I find it necessary to formulate optimal arguments to show them of the bridge between child transition and raping toddlers. It's quite clear that John Q. Public can't see the connection.

Regarding child attraction, yes, I think normies will be convinced these perverts can't help themselves, particularly women. Women constantly engage in self-sacrificial behavior and often minimize their own abuse. I see lots of comments on YouTube from what I suspect are pro-pedo bots who defend pedos as brave for speaking out. The Overton Window is slowly shifting to paint them as sympathetic victims who deserve compassion, which has already worked for SSA people.

I do see some comments that are from real women who seem to actually forgive their abusers. Women vote. Women vote left. Women will be complicit in normalizing this shit if men don't play an active role in our society.

What gay guy ever heard an anti-gay evolutionary argument and went, "Oh man, I forgot... evolution... oh man I feel so stupid—f-forgive me, Darwin-sensei! No more gay sex—it's not what the big bang and the primordial ooze would've wanted! I'm your strongest soldier, Charles Darwin! You can count on me, Chuck!"

Like, what are we talking about here?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm just a secular straight who's interested in lots of things. As a lifelong supporter of LGB, but someone who hates being lied to, the TQ+ weirdos have caused to reconsider certain things.

I see so many LGB shitting on Christians, including perverting the church with sinful displays. I see them celebrating Charlie Kirk's execution. It bothers me for the same reason I was bothered by Matthew Shepherd. A tolerant society is optimal. Realizing I'd been manipulated with lies about Matthew Shepherd's death bothers me, as well.

My purpose ITT isn't to convince any gays not to do gay shit. I have lots of LGB friends and would always defend them from actual harassment or the right to exist. But we've went from the "right to exist" aka tolerance down > requested acceptance > demanded acceptance > forced acceptance > forced compliance > total obedience.

I don't think this thread has a singular purpose or goal. We're just discussing shit. If gay men treated AIDS like the fucking health crisis it was, directly resultant from their actions, they'd be in a better timeline. Somehow a fucking STD exploding in bathhouses in the Castro got turned into a civil rights issue. People celebrate their perversions with parades and we have months dedicated to something useless and entirely hedonistic.

Responding directly to your sarcasm above, certainly you see the utility in gay men understanding the serious harms of their lifestyle, right? I see reddit's propaganda machine whitewashing lots of that shit. If gays are unwilling to listen, I think it's good that regular straights like me see how much of their movement is based on undeserved entitlement and denial of reality. I also think it's good if "the regular gays" can see what normies see and self-correct their groups behavior.

Basically, I feel gamed by a lot of disinformation from a campaign I was unaware of. I also think it'd be helpful if gay men were honest with themselves whether their sexual orientation was shaped by adult men SA'ing them. I don't give a fuck about the evolutionary argument the other dude is sperging about, but dispelling the "we're all just born this way" argument has utility, too.

FWIW, I didn't take your comment as argumentative and enjoyed it. I hope mine doesn't come off as such, either. It isn't.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

Realizing I'd been manipulated with lies about Matthew Shepherd's death bothers me, as well.

Wait, what lies?

 

[Twix Eatr]

Wait, what lies?

Matthew Shepherd's death wasn't a hate crime where evil, random straights murdered a man for being gay. His murderer was at least bi himself and had been sexually intimate with Matthew prior. Matthew sold meth and the lunatic who killed him was robbing him of his stash in a meth-fueled frenzy. People still cling to it, but you can find information here and there on the truth. It was also tied in with the "gay panic" type shit, too, which helped villainize straight men for not wanting men to hit on them. Here's another article with more information.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

Matthew Shepherd's death wasn't a hate crime where evil, random straights murdered a man for being gay. His murderer was at least bi himself and had been sexually intimate with Matthew prior. Matthew sold meth and the lunatic who killed him was robbing him of his stash in a meth-fueled frenzy. People still cling to it, but you can find information here and there on the truth. It was also tied in with the "gay panic" type shit, too, which helped villainize straight men for not wanting men to hit on them. Here's another article with more information.

Not a single word in these articles has surprised me. I'm digging more and found a mention in another article on The Guardian that he was HIV positive as well. Everything about his story just screams Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes: Gay Edition. HIV, prostitution, drug addiction, drug peddling, and surrounding oneself with dangerous degenerates. Somehow it angers me even more than the homophobic hate crime narrative, I have personal issues with crab bucket communities. This type of betrayal is a really special kind of evil.

Something of this sorts happened with Brandon Teena as well. The whole story was not what trans activists portray it to be. And likely LGB activists as well. Forgive me for sounding like a broken record at this point: a victim of systematic pedophilic and incestual sexual abuse by a male relative grew up to be fixated on girls? Yeah, surely lesbianism was always there to begin with, totally zero chance of horrific trauma fucking everything up.

 

[Twix Eatr]

I'm digging more and found a mention in another article on The Guardian that he was HIV positive as well.

Yep. I remember that tidbit because one of the LEO's was trying to help clear his airway without gloves.

Something of this sorts happened with Brandon Teena as well. The whole story was not what trans activists portray it to be. And likely LGB activists as well. Forgive me for sounding like a broken record at this point: a victim of systematic pedophilic and incestual sexual abuse by a male relative grew up to be fixated on girls? Yeah, surely lesbianism was always there to begin with, totally zero chance of horrific trauma fucking everything up.

Yep. I was banned from reddit a year ago for stating such. People on here didn't seem to like this info, either. She also had a sexual relationship with a minor female prior. The "partner" portrayed in the movie was also not into it and was duped by her pretending to be a man.

> Perusing your comment history, it seems you have a real hard on for hatred of trans people. Those "minor" girls were from when Brandon was also a minor, so don't paint him as a pedophile."

Respecting women's rights isn't a "hatred of trans people." I simply adhere to reality and don't value men's desires to be in women's spaces ahead of women's safety. I put "transgender" in quotations because there's no such thing and I refuse to lend the claim credibility when it's so demonstrably harmful. No, Brandon wasn't a "he."

Why did you put minor in quotations? No, "Brandon" wasn't a minor, she was 18 at least (possibly 19) and her unwitting girlfriend was 14. It was statutory rape and predatory.

Brandon Teena, at the age of 18, was involved in a relationship with a 14-year-old girl named Heather. This relationship is documented in various sources detailing Brandon's life prior to her move to Falls City, Nebraska. For instance, an article on Ranker notes that after a brief relationship with a 13-year-old named Liz, Brandon "moved on to a 14-year-old girl named Heather, to whom he even allegedly proposed."

Additionally, the Crime Library mentions that "In mid-1991, Teena began his first serious relationship, with a girl named Heather." These accounts suggest that Brandon, during her late teenage years, engaged in relationships with younger teenage girls.

I also find it disgusting and pathetic that you keep insinuating I think she deserved to be raped and murdered. While I find it deplorable to discount someone's sexuality and deceive them into a relationship by stealthing your sex, which is definitely rape by deception, I don't suddenly think two sicko rapist men raping her is some act of justice. I wish they were properly dealt with by authorities before they had a chance to murder. I'm also sickened that the poor girl was sexually abused by her own family, too.

I didn't use a "broad stroke" there, either, but a specific one that is extremely hushed by activists because it threatens the foundation of their cause (evidenced by your behavior). Rather than address the issue of sexual abuse being a contributor of women identifying as men, they silence it, needing to preserve this metaphysical, non-existent "gender identity" as some innate, true self (despite calling it 'fluid' every other sentence). I didn't say the "only reason", either as I'm referring specifically to this individual.

I'd mentioned the incestuous relationship with a suspected uncle in an earlier comment, but could only find that one saved. Edit: The article you linked was actually my best source for those reddit comments so you probably know as much about her as me.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Matthew Shepherd's death wasn't a hate crime where evil, random straights murdered a man for being gay. His murderer was at least bi himself and had been sexually intimate with Matthew prior. Matthew sold meth and the lunatic who killed him was robbing him of his stash in a meth-fueled frenzy. People still cling to it, but you can find information here and there on the truth. It was also tied in with the "gay panic" type shit, too, which helped villainize straight men for not wanting men to hit on them. Here's another article with more information.

Another instance that immediately comes to mind is the murder of Larry King.

Even a cursory glance at the wikipedia article reveals that the kid was an attention-starved narcissist who sexually harassed his classmates, crossdressed, and was very disruptive in class. The person who murdered him also had a bad upbringing, and had violent tendencies, so of course he would finally snap from the constant sexual harassment and shoot him in the back of the head with a .22 revolver.

Nobody questioned why Larry behaved in such a way, why he identified as gay as early as ten years old, why he had such a strong compulsion to crossdress and sexually harass others. No, they thought it would be mean and bigoted to discipline him for his behavior, or dig deeper and figure out what kind of trauma or abuse would prompt him to act out like that.

No, they thought it was totally an anti-gay hate crime, and not an instance of some retarded young sex pest repeatedly fucking around with someone with violent tendencies and finding out.

It really is disgusting, how the LGBTQ will twist anything like this to fish for sympathy.

 

[Twix Eatr]

Another instance that immediately comes to mind is the murder of Larry King.

I first heard about this on here a few months back. Yes, it's similar. Matthew Shepherd's mother is referenced in the Wiki as expressing condolences through her stupid foundation. It's wild how captured Wikiedia is. I hate it.

I agree that it's suspect how they don't question why this kid was so fucked up. But they have to cling to it because if they're not actually "born this way," it destroys the narrative. AGP's love kids like this being killed for being weirdos as long as they're celebrated as killed for being trans. It validates their degeneracy; they launder it through kids for this reason since 8-year-olds aren't perverts.

Not wearing makeup as a boy should be enforced by students, not upheld by adults. Of course, they'll just double-down on everyone else needing to conform to one kid's disruptive behavior. It's fucking weird since bullying and rigid expectations as kids from peers is kind of part of adolescence. If adults would've stopped this confused kid, maybe he'd be alive. I wish McInerney would've just beat the shit out of him, though.

Also, it does nothing to dispel the accusations against {{you know who}} is ruining our country:

In July 2008, Newsweek reported that a day or two before the shooting, King walked onto the basketball court in the middle of a game and asked McInerney to be his Valentine in front of the team members, who then made fun of McInerney.[3] Later that day King was seen walking back and forth in high-heeled boots and makeup in front of McInerney. According to a teacher, a group of boys were laughing at McInerney who was getting visibly upset and assistant principal Joy Epstein, noticing McInerney's reaction, wagged her finger at him.[12]

According to a Newsweek article published on July 19, 2008, some teachers at E.O. Green alleged that assistant principal Joy Epstein was "encouraging King's flamboyance to help further an 'agenda' ".[3] When Epstein was later promoted to principal at another local public school, King's father described it as a "slap in the face of my family". The superintendent, Jerry Dannenberg, stated that Epstein received the promotion because "she was the most qualified person for the new principal job".[3]

wtf, they added a "lying in wait" charge to it, forcing him to be tried as an adult? He shot the fucking kid for sexually harassing him again while at school. Should he have skipped forever? That doesn't fit the spirit of the charge, in my opinion.

A few of the witnesses said that they never noticed King making sexual advances toward other students but that sexual comments he made were "just messing" with McInerney.[49]

Oh, I guess that's totally okay then. His "sexual comments" weren't sexual advances and straighty should get over it (they also call him a white supremacist per the prosecutor). I'm curious if there's a book or article on this case from the stance of objective reality or normalcy.

Edit: Sweet, found this:

Investigating the case Cunningham felt compelled to challenge what she perceived as a homophobic portrayal of King in the mainstream media. She began attending McInerney's pre-trial motions and hearings. "The more she looked into the case, the more she uncovered a web of complications and nuance that just wasn’t being given a fair hearing by the media, let alone the courts."[3]

Going try and find a download.
Edit #2: Okay, I doubt it's going to be good.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

If adults would've stopped this confused kid, maybe he'd be alive. I wish McInerney would've just beat the shit out of him, though.

I think any sane person would agree that as disgusting as Larry's behavior was, a much better consequence would have been suspension, expulsion, and/or getting referred to a psychologist who wasn't pozzed.

Another thing that sticks out to me, was that this incident happened in the late aughts. Years before the whole "woke" or "SJW" issue hit the mainstream.

 

[Paper Machete]

It's insane they were seeing a 10 year old being sexually aggressive to other kids and everyone is like "be niiice, he's just ghey".

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

It's insane they were seeing a 10 year old being sexually aggressive to other kids and everyone is like "be niiice, he's just ghey".

He was killed at roughly age 15, but yes, I imagine he was doing that sort of thing for years before then.

A telltale sign that the kid was horribly abused at home or something. And they did nothing but wait for him to piss off another maladjusted teen enough for it to end in murder.

You only have to give it a split second of thought, and it will enrage you.

 

[Paper Machete]

He was killed at roughly age 15, but yes, I imagine he was doing that sort of thing for years before then.

A telltale sign that the kid was horribly abused at home or something. And they did nothing but wait for him to piss off another maladjusted teen enough for it to end in murder.

You only have to give it a split second of thought, and it will enrage you.

I must have read something wrong. But yes, the sentiment still holds.

 

[Twix Eatr]

I think it said he came out as gay at 10-years-old, which might as well be sexually aggressive.

 

[Big Shot]

What do you guys think of Girard's theory of male homosexuality as an extreme humiliation fetish? It fits right in with my experiences

Without turning this into a TMI trauma dumping ground, the only socialization I got was from bullies and eventually my brain twisted it to me being extremely meek towards them and fishing for negative comments from them and liking it. Basically baiting except IRL.

The internet didn't help since it initially sold me an image of a "wholesome" LGBT and reading yaoi stories and comics made my horrible mindspace worse. Do you have a mental illness that makes you overly subservient to other men? Nah you're just an uke, now go get HIV in your butthole UwU

Thankfully I would eventually get redpilled on 4chan about faggots and their disgusting "culture" such as chemsex and bugchasing. I also would end up getting redpilled about troons on 4chan and later KF

Girard is the only contemporary philosopher to critically analyze homosexuality and he admitted that his theory only explains a portion of homosexuals. Sadly due to woke censorship squads no one else has proposed a good theory. I don't have enough IQ points to come up with my own philosophical analysis so here's my 2 cents on the 3 types of male homosexuals:
1) Humiliation fetish / extreme submission: A desire of extreme submission/domination. Just like how male animals mount and hump each other to show dominance/submission
2) Childhood abuse: Those who try to relive their childhood sexual abuse
3) AGPs: Sissification itself as a fetish

 

[California Newt]

Jesus fucking Christ you're a retard. I'm a fag because at 12 or 13 I realized I was attracted more to guys than to girls. That's it. No weird occultism or hypnosis or any of the bullshit your fucked-up gooner subliterate imagination dreamed up. I've suffered a LOT in my life for being gay, which I did not choose, but rarely mention and never complain about. Yet tiresome morons like you just drone on and on how you hate gays. It's really boring and your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are abominably stupid.

You might want to read them more carefully before getting upset. I didn't say anything about attraction in the post you quoted; it was about the kind of love or intimacy.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

Childhood abuse: Those who try to relive their childhood sexual abuse

Few years ago I have befriended a gay guy who seemed like "I'm just gay" at first glance. And yes, nobody molested him, he didn't have much Internet access growing up either.

And then it turned out that he was living in an absolutely batshit insane situation at home while also being home schooled. Gross details ahead:

Spoiler

Of course you'll be messed up sexually after living with a mother that was expecting you to go to a potty like a toddler and cleaning up after you until the age of fucking fourteen. Extreme control, parents clearly don't love each other, father abuses mother and grandmother, and the dude was saying multiple times that he projects onto motherly roles. He's not a troon neither is dysphoric, but seems to be painfully attached to "caring mother" projection and is upset that he can't be a mother and that society expected him to be a father instead.

I'm kind of tired of society as a whole detaching sexuality from overall psyche, pretending as if it exists separately, when we know damn well it doesn't, the whole forum is packed with evidence. One doesn't need to only be traumatized sexually to develop something that gets expressed through sexuality. Has this always been like this, or it's an inevitable consequence of turning sexual orientation into identities?

Your post reminded me of another example of childhood abuse being projected onto sexuality that I have in my current circle, also a male, except he was "I may be technically bi" with extreme fixation on and almost exclusive attraction to men to the point when he wasn't sure if he likes women at all. We did talk a lot about it and humiliation was at the center, turned out humiliation came from complex trauma he experienced as a child and things that ended up horribly when he was a young adult. Nobody molested him, but his life from the beginning was horrifying enough to mess it all up anyway. By the way, he too was baiting, both online (that's where I first met him and needless to say, I was baited into alogging him as well at first) and offline.
That slowly fades into the past as he's scratching the surface of trauma, acknowledging it exists, and that naturally made him lose interest in all that.

 

[Whatevermancer]

What do you guys think of Girard's theory of male homosexuality as an extreme humiliation fetish?

I think humiliation fetish is a Kiwifarms meme that gets thrown around when an attention whore does some attention whoring.

 

[California Newt]

What do you guys think of Girard's theory of male homosexuality as an extreme humiliation fetish? It fits right in with my experiences

I own "Things Hidden from the Foundation of the World", but haven't read it yet. I'll have to do that once I'm back where my books are. I've read secondary material on him, though—his mimetic desire explanation is interesting, but I'd agree that it only probably applies to a cross-section.

His idea is that people—insecure on a fundamental level, but especially after the French Revolution and death of God—look to others to see what they should want: for example, they'll want the same kind of woman they think gigachad wants. He has some literary analysis about how this can snowball into a vaguely homoerotic cuck territory; he uses one example of a Dostoevsky story where a guy can't be attracted to women unless this other dude is into them, and he winds up basically giving his woman to this guy.

The theory on homosexuality develops from that, basically cutting out the middle-man.

At least, that's how I remember it being presented in the secondary material. From what I remember, the humiliation fetish stuff was taking the mimetic desire concept to its logical extreme—where you have to make what you want less and less attainable while quasi-deifying the person who can give it, and the purpose of this is to maximize the desire that comes from the illusion that this whatever-it-is can satisfy you in the complete way that you're looking for.

I could definitely see the two ideas connecting.

His scapegoat stuff sounds like postwar bunk, that said.



Personally, I think he's really overthinking it. I tend to think that anyone can get into anything, and the barriers that exist have more to do with taboos motivating people not to wrap their heads around or pay mind to those things. So it really just takes some elbow grease and sensitization, and you can unlock anything.

I went into one way that can happen over in LGBTQiwis:

Spoiler: Explanation

You don't parse the men as wholly distinct from yourself at first, which is why it doesn't feel "gay". It only feels as gay as watching hardcore porn does for any straight man (which if you think about it is already very weird—you're watching some dude have sex).

Masks, helmets, and furries are popular with these guys for that reason: the face individuates—it's the body-part that makes it the most clear that you're not viewing an extension of yourself. A lot of guys never clear that hurdle; the face obstructs the "flow" from your candle (I'm realizing this is an unintentionally phallic analogy).

Sensitization can overcome that, but you also get an odd "demisexual" turn in a lot of them: making a connection "opens a channel" for the flame to pass through. It still wounds the conscience analogously to incest, but sensitization can clear that hurdle too.

A nasty side effect is that it can be hard to decouple homosexuality from homosociality (which is much more interesting of a subject—homosociality, I mean) past a certain degree of closeness.

There are people this method applies to, and there are those it doesn't apply to (such as the person I was replying to in that thread). It's something you can think your way into, but not out of—which is why I've personally stopped writing those kinds of posts, mostly. I'd still like to know where aversion to women comes from, having not experienced that.

Unrelated, but I will say that I think women are more generally hung up on power dynamics for understandable reasons.

 

[Paper Machete]

I'd still like to know where aversion to women comes from, having not experienced that.

From a social aspect I think some find it easier to just lean into only wanting to deal with other men because it requires zero responsibility. Co-ed spaces and relationships mean you have to meet each other half-way and engage with them as an other, you need empathy and willingness to act on it. If you pair that with poor relationships/examples of women during adolescence then it's not difficult to figure out.

If you're talking sexually, I do think there is a legit erotic target location "error". They're responding to the idea of interacting with the female form in the same way a straight man would think of interacting with another man because that is how their brain has mapped things.

 

[Big Shot]

I'd still like to know where aversion to women comes from, having not experienced that.

The brain is incredibly plastic, specially in younger ages. Any gooner can tell you how easy it is to get into fetishes and now suddenly you find vanilla PiV sex uninteresting or maybe even disgusting

taking the mimetic desire concept to its logical extreme—where you have to make what you want less and less attainable while quasi-deifying the person who can give it

I didn't like his cuck analysis but the end result is 100% true. The closest "normal" analogue to that that I can think of is master/disciple relationships, where one guy becomes very servile to another with the end goal of learning their ways over time. I admit that master/disciple mechanics are more of an eastern thing but "taking someone under your wing" exists in west too and there's zero homoromanticism in it

I used to be like the second guy @BIG SHOT Autos mentioned, completely psyopped into thinking I'm homoromantic. Conveniently when I started working on my mental issues and grew a spine this entire identity that the LGBT cult insists you're born with it went away.