Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

How would you classify homosexuals?

For me I think the whole display is behavioral in that there is no evidence of a genetical mutation that gives individuals the propensity for being homosexual.

It's completely psychological and a learned behavior trait.  

The reason that homosexuality is a repetitive portion of human history is because it is a entirely pervasive behavioral meme.

What is interesting is the behavior of male inmates in a prison that given restricted zero access to a population of females they will have sexual relationships with one another either consensually or not.

Maybe homosexuals in society seek each other similarly because of their own lack of ability to procure somebody of the opposite sex which reduces themselves to have relationships with others of the same sex that have similar inabilities.

This has caused me to propose that homosexuality exists because of sexual restriction, limitation, and inability.

Then of course another theory of mine is that through years of sexual abuse by people individuals overtime develop homosexual tendencies which causes them to seek other people of the same sex.  I often enough see this characteristic in females that either through years of being sexually abused when they were younger or recently being constantly womanized by men pushes them to lesbianism.

Usually the sexual abuse comes from somebody of the opposite sex which facilitates them to the find the security of another of the same sex when it concerns relationships.

So we could say that emotional, mental, or psychological weakness is a sort of transforming factor in shaping people towards homosexuality making it completely reactionary.

What are other people's thoughts on this issue?

No, homosexuality is not learned.
Ask Lilith.

Homosexuality is a mutations upon one of the most vulnerable aspects of human nature.
A parasitical one.

Σατυρ wrote:

No, homosexuality is not learned.
Ask Lilith.

Homosexuality is a mutations upon one of the most vulnerable aspects of human nature.
A parasitical one.

Quote :

No, homosexuality is not learned.

How is it not?

Quote :

Ask Lilith.

Is she a lesbian? I thought Purple boned her.

Quote :

Homosexuality is a mutations upon one of the most vulnerable aspects of human nature.
A parasitical one.

Could you go more in depth on this?

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

No, homosexuality is not learned.

How is it not?

Is heterosexuality learned?
Who taught you?

Are you on the brink of questioning your teachings, as an act of free-thinking rebelliousness?

TheJoker wrote:

Is she a lesbian? I thought Purple boned her.

Did he?

Spread it around....it might work.

Ask Lilith.

TheJoker wrote:

Could you go more in depth on this?

Nope.

I live my life on evidence. Evidence I can perceive and deduce reality with.
My brain tells me not to go into depth on this. Not here; not now.

But you can look up "parasite" and see how the definition might apply here.

Σατυρ wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

No, homosexuality is not learned.

How is it not?

Is heterosexuality learned?
Who taught you?

Are you on the brink of questioning your teachings, as an act of free-thinking rebelliousness?

TheJoker wrote:

Is she a lesbian? I thought Purple boned her.

Did he?

Spread it around....it might work.

Ask Lilith.

TheJoker wrote:

Could you go more in depth on this?

Nope.

I live my life on evidence. Evidence I can perceive and deduce reality with.
My brain tells me not to go into depth on this. Not here; not now.

But you can look up "parasite" and see how the definition might apply here.

Quote :

Is heterosexuality learned?
Who taught you?

I'll just repeat what I said in the other thread.

The argument can be made that heterosexuality isn't a learned behavior because of the natural design of sexual intercourse between men and women when it concerns the physical organs involved.

Homosexuality is merely a behavioral deviation from that.

Homosexuality mimics heterosexuality but lacks everything mentally and physically designed or imposed by nature that heterosexuality has not to mention orchestrates.

Quote :

Are you on the brink of questioning your teachings, as an act of free-thinking rebelliousness?

Funny.

Quote :

Did he?

Spread it around....it might work.

Your right, the rumor could of been a elaborate defense mechanism.

Quote :

Ask Lilith.

Hey Lilith!

Quote :

Nope. I live my life on evidence. Evidence I can perceive and deduce reality with.
My brain tells me not to go into depth on this. Not here; not now.

But you can look up "parasite" and see how the definition might apply here.

Are you afraid to have a opinion on a subject?

I would like your take on the parasitical aspect of homosexuality in how it preys on people.

TheJoker wrote:

Are you afraid to have a opinion on a subject?

Yes...I am known for being afraid.

Σατυρ wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

Are you afraid to have a opinion on a subject?

Yes...I am known for being afraid.

Why?

Σατυρ wrote:

No, homosexuality is not learned.
Ask Lilith.

How would I know?

Lilith wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

No, homosexuality is not learned.
Ask Lilith.

How would I know?

He thinks your a lesbian I think.

TheJoker wrote:

Lilith wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

No, homosexuality is not learned.
Ask Lilith.

How would I know?

He thinks your a lesbian I think.

Oh right.

But why would there necessarily be a reason for homosexuality?

Lilith wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

Lilith wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

No, homosexuality is not learned.
Ask Lilith.

How would I know?

He thinks your a lesbian I think.

Oh right.

But why would there necessarily be a reason for homosexuality?

I'm not saying there needs to be a reason or that there is one for homosexuality.

I'm just saying it's a behavioral reaction or deviation.

When it concerns deviation I mean that from heterosexuality.

LOL

My 12 year old brother comes up to the screen and goes Ew! Do they really do that?

What?

That.

What?

Dissect them. Do they really dissect homosexuals like that?

....LOL

Then he goes...

Is there something wrong with their balls or something?

Poison IV wrote:

LOL

My 12 year old brother comes up to the screen and goes Ew! Do they really do that?

What?

That.

What?

Dissect them. Do they really dissect homosexuals like that?

....LOL

Then he goes...

Is there something wrong with their balls or something?

If we were to dissect a fag we would only find miniature lady gaga statues inside them that play her music powered by small batteries.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

TheJoker wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

Are you afraid to have a opinion on a subject?

Yes...I am known for being afraid.

Why?

Ummmm, because I'm a coward who fears speaking his mind?
Just a guess.

For the record, I don't think Lilith is a lesbian at all.

TheJoker wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

How would you classify homosexuals?

For me I think the whole display is behavioral in that there is no evidence of a genetical mutation that gives individuals the propensity for being homosexual.

It's completely psychological and a learned behavior trait.

The reason that homosexuality is a repetitive portion of human history is because it is a entirely pervasive behavioral meme.

What is interesting is the behavior of male inmates in a prison that given restricted zero access to a population of females they will have sexual relationships with one another either consensually or not.

Maybe homosexuals in society seek each other similarly because of their own lack of ability to procure somebody of the opposite sex which reduces themselves to have relationships with others of the same sex that have similar inabilities.

This has caused me to propose that homosexuality exists because of sexual restriction, limitation, and inability.

Then of course another theory of mine is that through years of sexual abuse by people individuals overtime develop homosexual tendencies which causes them to seek other people of the same sex. I often enough see this characteristic in females that either through years of being sexually abused when they were younger or recently being constantly womanized by men pushes them to lesbianism.

Usually the sexual abuse comes from somebody of the opposite sex which facilitates them to the find the security of another of the same sex when it concerns relationships.

So we could say that emotional, mental, or psychological weakness is a sort of transforming factor in shaping people towards homosexuality making it completely reactionary.

What are other people's thoughts on this issue?

TheJoker wrote:

What is interesting is the behavior of male inmates in a prison that given restricted zero access to a population of females they will have sexual relationships with one another either consensually or not.

You’re talking about the difference between homosexuality and prison sex.

Generally, when homophobes start talking about gays, I generally want to ask them a hypothetical question:

Given the fact that most men do take things into their own hand,

If you were trapped on a desert island and knew you would be there for a long time, and there was no one around to see you, and were physically capable, wouldn’t you at least be tempted to give yourself a blowjob. Now most men would react violently to this. But a blow job is a blow job? If you were giving it to yourself, it wouldn’t be that different than masturbation.

And that’s the difference between us heterosexuals and gay guys. It’s not the act of getting your nut that differentiates us. We all want to do that. It’s the tender things that offend us. The thought of caressing another guy like we would a woman.

Throughout the animal kingdom, there are plenty of examples of males mounting other males.

In fact, there is a variety of frog that has a certain call to tell the other that he is mounting the wrong one.....

But there is a big difference between being gay




(and just being horney.

On these boards, I've seen things man:


gay guys that were like katty little bitches



guys that couldn't be explained by anything but biology


(and what's up with KD Lang and that beard?

If we are to look at the procreative instinct (lust) then the first and primary reason for it having evolved is as a fascilitator for reproduction. In the same manner that hunger is a fascilitator of nutrition or tiredness of rest.
The desire to reproduce was a successful adaptation among our ancestors, thus it was passed on as a useful trait.

If it can be thought of as a desire with loose biological foundations that cause the mind to find certain acitivities appealing, then perhaps the psychology of the individual will influence the specifics of these particular activities.

Consider sexual intercourse and anal intercourse. In both instances there is penetration and a rhythmic thrusting motion. This is basically what sex is. 1 party is penetrated the other penetrates. It is generally seen as a physically intimate and pleasurable experience, regardless of the details.

Now if we consider the sexual roles as that of masculine (dominant) and feminine (submissive) in this context it can be seen how the ideal of masculinity can be subverted through the adoption of a feminine role or of the imposition of a feminine role on another male, depending upon whether one is giving or receiving.

It is the flexibility of the human mind that applies itself to a matter of biological inclination as manifested through an individuals acquired experience that results in the wildly varying range of human fetishes.

If one can understand the motivations as to why an individual can find sex with children, corpses, animals, or the same gender appealing; or why leather, whips, chains, or what have you excite such a strong emotion than perhaps one can then make a value judgement on that behaviour.....

None of this extraneous shit is necessary for reproduction, yet for some it is an essential aspect of their sexuality. Acquired psychological traits.

Σατυρ wrote:

For the record, I don't think Lilith is a lesbian at all.

I'm so relieved at that.

Although I've had sexual encounters with women I found them unsatisfactory.

I do prefer men.

apaosha wrote:

If one can understand the motivations as to why an individual can find sex with children, corpses, animals, or the same gender appealing; or why leather, whips, chains, or what have you excite such a strong emotion than perhaps one can then make a value judgement on that behaviour.....

Lilith wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

For the record, I don't think Lilith is a lesbian at all.

I'm so relieved at that.

Although I've had sexual encounters with women I found them unsatisfactory.

I do prefer men.

Lulz.

What do members here think of this statement? I haven't read Trivers.
This would then seem to take it in the direction of a selective trait and justify it thus...

"4.Homosexuality in social animals is a form of sibling-altruism: that is, your homosexuality is a way of helping your brothers and sisters to raise more children.
This very-believable proposition is maintained by Robert Trivers in his book Social Evolution, (1985), pp. 198-9."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"In general, the man who is identified with the archetype of the puer aeternus remains too long in adolescent psychology; that is, all those characteristics that are normal in a youth of seventeen or eighteen are continued into later life, coupled in most cases with too great a dependence on the mother. The two typical disturbances of a man who has an outstanding mother complex are, as Jung points out, homosexuality and Don Juanism. In the case of the former, the heterosexual libido is still tied up with the mother, who is really the only beloved object, with the result that sex cannot be experienced with another woman. That would make her a rival of the mother, and therefore sexual needs are satisfied only with a member of the same sex. Generally such men lack masculinity and seek that in the partner.

In Don Juanism there is another typical form of this same disturbance. In this case, the image of the mother—the image of the perfect woman who will give everything to a man and who is without any shortcomings—is sought in every woman. He is looking for a mother goddess, so that each time he is fascinated by a woman he has later to discover that she is an ordinary human being. Once he has been intimate with her the whole fascination vanishes and he turns away disappointed, only to project the image anew onto one woman after another. He eternally longs for the maternal woman who will enfold him in her arms and satisfy his every need. This is often accompanied by the romantic attitude of the adolescent." [Marie-Louise von Franz, The problem of the Puer Aeteurnus]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Erik Holland's Nature of Homosexuality

From reading the above, I'd say there's good reason to think of homosexuality as an epigenetically-derived developmental disorder.

The first link is rather technical and I don't fully understand it, but the basic thrust of it is that a fact needs to be explained: homosexuality is (highly) heritable, but identical twins (if one is gay) aren't both necessarily gay. So they propose that it's something epigenetic; I understand "epigenetics" as a kind of "trigger" that influences the action of genes. They propose that there's something in the combination of these "triggers" of the procreating couples' DNA that gives rise to a "gonad-trait discordance", i.e. it fucks up the fetus's hormonal development (a developmental disorder).

If I remember correctly, Holland explicitly criticizes Trivers' hypothesis simply by observing the behavior of "gay uncles" and homosexual people in general. Are they really around raising kids, helping to raise kids? Hollands book has a lot of statistics to contradict the idea: gays in general, and fags especially, are totally narcissistic, obsessed with sex, have much higher rates of mental/personality disorders, etc.

i'll have to read, thanks for the link.

I agree with the epigenetics explanation.

It is made worse due to sheltering and the protection of mutations from the natural ways of culling them out of a genetic pool.

Quote :

Maybe homosexuals in society seek each other similarly because of their own lack of ability to procure somebody of the opposite sex which reduces themselves to have relationships with others of the same sex that have similar inabilities.

"But the reference to "intermediate sexual forms," to an incomplete process of the development of sex or to a regression, does not explain all the varieties of homosexuality. In fact, there have been male homosexuals who have not been effeminate or "intermediate forms"but even men of war, individuals decidedly manly in their appearance and behavior, powerful men who have had or could have had the most beautiful women at their disposal. Such homosexuality is hard to explain, and we have the right here to speak of deviation and perversion, or "vice" linked, perhaps, to a fashion. Indeed, it is hard to understand what can drive a man who is truly a man sexually toward an individual of the same sex. If appropriate material for the realization of the zenith of the orgasm of heterosexual love is almost nonexistent, this is even more the case in the embraces of homosexual love. However, there is reason to suppose that it is merely a matter of "mutual masturbation" and that the conditioned reflexes are exploited for "pleasure" since not only the metaphysical but also the physical premises for a whole and destructive union are lacking."-Julius Evola

Homosexuality in today's world is more of a political agenda. To be an "open" homosexual is to be another "proud" member of the community of victims( which include women and minorities). To open yourself up to attack by coming out when the great majority connect with the victim is not even very courageous.

Why do the very good looking, "manly" men who could have any woman, decide to only be with men? I believe it's dissatisfaction with women on an physically aesthetic level. These men may or may not find women spiritually inspiring(as muses). In defense of these types of men, the majority of women don't take care of their bodies let alone their minds. Having a "hot" girlfriend is a time consuming drain UNLESS you're goal is children. The problem with these types of men, is that they forgo having children because they are too concerned with aesthetics. They then project this choice of not having having children as some value that should be respected. The choice(value) is then intertwined with homosexuality itself(another "choice"). You could say aesthetics almost becomes a fetish.

Yet the straight very good looking man that doesn't have children who throws himself again and again into the chaotic world of women is unwilling to form himself and create order for himself, or a future generation.

The public discussion around sexuality always seems to see sexuality itself as its own end... "You're straight? You're gay? That's ok, it's your "choice." Now continue on fucking anything you want and forget about everything else" Pleasure is the end. The end of conflict.

Don Juans (playas) are continuations of male procreative strategies: seed many so that a few may survive.
It's quantity over quality.
More refined male minds, have a more closer connection to their feminine dispositions.
They opt for quality, particularly in environments where being a "playa" comes at a high cost.

Here I would like to mention something I've been thinking about concerning metrosexualty.
The man of discriminating tastes can be mistaken for a metro-sexual, just as refinement can be mistaken for snobbishness.

A man of taste may be aware of subtleties but is not dependent on their presence.
He may prefer a certain qualitative standard but will not complain when it is not available.
A male makes do, and he does not insult the one who offers.
He may wish for a higher quality, but will not turn away lower quality when it offers itself to him - sign of nobility: the generosity of spirit that finds some value in every experience.

This stands in contrast to the pretentious metro-sexual, whose refinement is imitated and so it acquires exaggeration as a mode of accentuating its presence in so much vulgarity; hyperbole to hide its non-existence. He imitates, adopts and plays a part he thinks places him within a more elite group.
The rich are prone to take on this tactic to play the part of culture, while not being able to fully appreciate it.
They purchase art or rare books as adornments, accessories.
They go to concertos and fund museums because that`s what is expected of them.
They learn foreign languages not to exchange ideas but to be cosmopolitan.
Finery, for them, is another draping.
They dine on fine cuisine, and drink the best wine, though they are incapable of appreciating the artistry in their making, nor the subtleties participating in their combinations.
They are detached, not because they stand above but because they are unable to connect, to sense, to be sensitive.
They will not once settle for the lesser, to the point of becoming demanding, garish, insulting, for this may shatter the image they wish to cultivate.
Their taste is acquired, not an innate quality.

Satyr wrote:

A man of taste may be aware of subtleties but is not dependent on their presence.

Actions do speak louder than words - Some time ago I was confronted with the argument that it's not all about actions. At the time my knee jerk reaction was to assume an attempt at rationalizing bad behavior but a part of me did see something beyond that.

And now I am reminded of what it is. It's also about the individual who is judging the actions of others. How good is he at perceiving the subtleties and how well can he estimate that other persons state of mind, his motivations,....

In case of the Don Juan type (I have read, somewhere, some time ago) it's more about the conquest to receive adoration. Validation from the outside, it becomes the central theme, hunger for that person.


fairest, most successful, rich,...

Something similar could be the case with many metro-sexuals and homosexuals.

Quote :

They will not once settle for the lesser, to the point of becoming demanding,garish, insulting, for this may shatter the image they wish to cultivate.

"True wealth doesn't show" someone once said, well, not in an exaggerated way.