- Joined
- Aug 9, 2022
I thought I'd take a break from my usual posting habits and put this down for posterity. I developed this model many years ago to help address the myriad of questions pertaining to the assessment of the homosexuality of a given course of action -- e.g., "Are traps gay?"; "Is it gay to...", etc. I've long put off submitting this for publication so I figured I might as well at least self-publish for the benefit of the discourse. It's not a perfect model by any means, but it has far more heuristic value than any competing models I'm aware of.
The core axiom upon which the model is built is itself an attempt to elegantly circumvent a historic roadblock in this vein of conjecture, which is the difficulty of reaching a unified definition of "gay". This model presupposes that, while "gay" itself is a nebulous and poorly defined criterion, the colloquial understanding of "faggot" is comparatively cohesive; and furthermore, it is generally agreed upon that faggots are extremely gay. Thus, a generalized understanding of "gay" can be extrapolated as a set of characteristics exemplified by the archetypal faggot, and thus the gayness of a given subject can be evaluated in comparison to the faggot. In layman's terms, the more like a faggot something is, the gayer it is.
This is particularly cogent in the domain of mate selection, and offers some valuable insights. For example:
Table 1
By reducing more abstract concepts to a simple set of criteria, it can be clearly seen that traps, femboys, and trannies are all virtually indistinguishable from faggots, and, it goes without saying, are 100% gay. In light of this data, I would go so far as to argue for these cases to be redefined as subsets of "faggot", and will be treating them as such throughout the rest of this document for the sake of concision.
It can further be seen that because men, like faggots, are male, but unlike faggots exhibit a masculine behavioral suite, men exhibit 50% similarity to faggots.
Similarly, women are distinct from faggots in biological sex, but share a feminine suite of behaviors, which puts women at 50% faggot similarity as well.
For the purposes of mate selection, this data can be plotted in a punnett square to derive the overall gayness of a given relationship:
Table 2
* and subsets thereof
This provides further insights. First of all, it demonstrates what we already know: two faggots together is totally gay. Furthermore, any relationship that contains a faggot, regardless of the other partner, is at least half gay.
More glaringly though, this model would seem to elucidate a pair of inconvenient truths, those being 1) heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equally gay (provided they do not include a faggot), and 2) a relationship is never less than 25% gay. These results would at first seem to be contradictory to conventional knowledge. However, upon dispassionate, objective examination, they hold up to scrutiny: a heterosexual relationship is typically free from same-sex sexual interaction, but tends to include other gay shit like shopping and watching The Notebook. Conversely, a homosexual male relationship includes the very gay act of sodomy, but (faggots notwithstanding) eschews interior decorating and small dogs. The gayness balances out.
This of course begs the question of how homosexual female interaction, which includes both same-sex sexual interaction as well as faggot-like behavior, only ranks 25% gay; this can be attributed to the well-known paradox that two chicks isn't gay because it's hot.
For a time, the model remained in this state and I considered it completed. However, there is an additional category that warrants consideration: the tomboy. The tomboy would appear, both in concept and in criteria, to be antithetical to the faggot. And indeed, when plotted on the same tables, it appears overwhelmingly so:
Table 1, rev. 1
* and subsets thereof
As the tomboy has nothing in common with the faggot -- neither sex nor behavior -- she is the only completely straight choice. In fact, due to the quirks of absolute straightness, the straightness of the tomboy renders the previous method of calculating the overall gayness of relationships obsolete:
Table 2, rev. 1
* and subsets thereof
This metric would appear to suggest that any relationship that includes a tomboy is 0% gay, which is pragmatically inaccurate. It is also heuristically unhelpful, in that while it accurately demonstrates the tomboy as the clear optimal mate for any straight person, it fails to offer any guidance in mate selection for the tomboy herself. A more accurate method involves summing the total instances of faggot similarity across all parties in the relationship, rather than multiplying the individual percentages:
Table 2, rev. 2
* and subsets thereof
This methodology not only reaffirms the previous findings -- that the obvious choice of mate for any straight individual is the tomboy; the understanding that heterosexual and homosexual (faggotless) relationships are equally gay; and the inconvenient truth that a relationship cannot be less than 25% gay** -- it also offers a more granular understanding of the stratification (or should I say straightification) of tomboy-inclusive relationships.
First of all, the mere existence of the tomboy redefines the limits of how straight a relationship can be: heterosexual and homosexual (faggotless) relationships, previously thought to be 25% gay, are now seen to be 50% gay, whereas the prior standard of 25% gayness is occupied by nonfaggot-tomboy relationships.
Secondly, whereas the previous methodology rendered all tomboy-inclusive relationships equal, this new methodology provides comparative rates regarding the other partner in tomboy-inclusive relationships, accurately reflecting the inescapable gayness of the faggot.
**Note however that this model would appear to indicate that a relationship between two tomboys is optimally straight, but this is merely an artifact of the process and very likely erroneous. The technical details are a bit outside the scope of this discussion and only really pertinent if you are a single tomboy, in which case feel free to DM me and I'll be happy to explain it to you over dinner.
The core axiom upon which the model is built is itself an attempt to elegantly circumvent a historic roadblock in this vein of conjecture, which is the difficulty of reaching a unified definition of "gay". This model presupposes that, while "gay" itself is a nebulous and poorly defined criterion, the colloquial understanding of "faggot" is comparatively cohesive; and furthermore, it is generally agreed upon that faggots are extremely gay. Thus, a generalized understanding of "gay" can be extrapolated as a set of characteristics exemplified by the archetypal faggot, and thus the gayness of a given subject can be evaluated in comparison to the faggot. In layman's terms, the more like a faggot something is, the gayer it is.
This is particularly cogent in the domain of mate selection, and offers some valuable insights. For example:
Table 1
| Subject | Sex | Behavior | % gay |
| Faggot | Male | Feminine | 100% |
| Trap | Male | Feminine | 100% |
| Femboy | Male | Feminine | 100% |
| Tranny | Male | Feminine | 100% |
| Man | Male | Masculine | 50% |
| Woman | Female | Feminine | 50% |
By reducing more abstract concepts to a simple set of criteria, it can be clearly seen that traps, femboys, and trannies are all virtually indistinguishable from faggots, and, it goes without saying, are 100% gay. In light of this data, I would go so far as to argue for these cases to be redefined as subsets of "faggot", and will be treating them as such throughout the rest of this document for the sake of concision.
It can further be seen that because men, like faggots, are male, but unlike faggots exhibit a masculine behavioral suite, men exhibit 50% similarity to faggots.
Similarly, women are distinct from faggots in biological sex, but share a feminine suite of behaviors, which puts women at 50% faggot similarity as well.
For the purposes of mate selection, this data can be plotted in a punnett square to derive the overall gayness of a given relationship:
Table 2
| Subject (gay%) | Faggot* (100%) | Man (50%) | Woman (50%) |
| Faggot* (100%) | 100% | 50% | 50% |
| Man (50%) | 50% | 25% | 25% |
| Woman (50%) | 50% | 25% | 25% |
This provides further insights. First of all, it demonstrates what we already know: two faggots together is totally gay. Furthermore, any relationship that contains a faggot, regardless of the other partner, is at least half gay.
More glaringly though, this model would seem to elucidate a pair of inconvenient truths, those being 1) heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equally gay (provided they do not include a faggot), and 2) a relationship is never less than 25% gay. These results would at first seem to be contradictory to conventional knowledge. However, upon dispassionate, objective examination, they hold up to scrutiny: a heterosexual relationship is typically free from same-sex sexual interaction, but tends to include other gay shit like shopping and watching The Notebook. Conversely, a homosexual male relationship includes the very gay act of sodomy, but (faggots notwithstanding) eschews interior decorating and small dogs. The gayness balances out.
This of course begs the question of how homosexual female interaction, which includes both same-sex sexual interaction as well as faggot-like behavior, only ranks 25% gay; this can be attributed to the well-known paradox that two chicks isn't gay because it's hot.
For a time, the model remained in this state and I considered it completed. However, there is an additional category that warrants consideration: the tomboy. The tomboy would appear, both in concept and in criteria, to be antithetical to the faggot. And indeed, when plotted on the same tables, it appears overwhelmingly so:
Table 1, rev. 1
| Subject | Sex | Behavior | % gay |
| Faggot* | Male | Feminine | 100% |
| Man | Male | Masculine | 50% |
| Woman | Female | Feminine | 50% |
| Tomboy | Female | Masculine | 0% |
As the tomboy has nothing in common with the faggot -- neither sex nor behavior -- she is the only completely straight choice. In fact, due to the quirks of absolute straightness, the straightness of the tomboy renders the previous method of calculating the overall gayness of relationships obsolete:
Table 2, rev. 1
| Subject (gay%) | Faggot* (100%) | Man (50%) | Woman (50%) | Tomboy (0%) |
| Faggot* (100%) | 100% | 50% | 50% | 0% |
| Man (50%) | 50% | 25% | 25% | 0% |
| Woman (50%) | 50% | 25% | 25% | 0% |
| Tomboy (0%) | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
This metric would appear to suggest that any relationship that includes a tomboy is 0% gay, which is pragmatically inaccurate. It is also heuristically unhelpful, in that while it accurately demonstrates the tomboy as the clear optimal mate for any straight person, it fails to offer any guidance in mate selection for the tomboy herself. A more accurate method involves summing the total instances of faggot similarity across all parties in the relationship, rather than multiplying the individual percentages:
Table 2, rev. 2
| Subject (gay%) | Faggot* (2/2, 100%) | Man (1/2, 50%) | Woman (1/2, 50%) | Tomboy (0/2, 0%) |
| Faggot* (2/2, 100%) | 4/4 (100%) | 3/4 (75%) | 3/4 (75%) | 2/4 (50%) |
| Man (1/2, 50%) | 3/4 (75%) | 2/4 (50%) | 2/4 (50%) | 1/4 (25%) |
| Woman (1/2, 50%) | 3/4 (75%) | 2/4 (50%) | 2/4 (50%) | 1/4 (25%) |
| Tomboy (0/2, 0%) | 2/4 (50%) | 1/4 (25%) | 1/4 (25%) | 0/4 (0%)** |
This methodology not only reaffirms the previous findings -- that the obvious choice of mate for any straight individual is the tomboy; the understanding that heterosexual and homosexual (faggotless) relationships are equally gay; and the inconvenient truth that a relationship cannot be less than 25% gay** -- it also offers a more granular understanding of the stratification (or should I say straightification) of tomboy-inclusive relationships.
First of all, the mere existence of the tomboy redefines the limits of how straight a relationship can be: heterosexual and homosexual (faggotless) relationships, previously thought to be 25% gay, are now seen to be 50% gay, whereas the prior standard of 25% gayness is occupied by nonfaggot-tomboy relationships.
Secondly, whereas the previous methodology rendered all tomboy-inclusive relationships equal, this new methodology provides comparative rates regarding the other partner in tomboy-inclusive relationships, accurately reflecting the inescapable gayness of the faggot.
**Note however that this model would appear to indicate that a relationship between two tomboys is optimally straight, but this is merely an artifact of the process and very likely erroneous. The technical details are a bit outside the scope of this discussion and only really pertinent if you are a single tomboy, in which case feel free to DM me and I'll be happy to explain it to you over dinner.
