Serious LGBT Discussion

[Dandelion Eyes]

Lol I love it when fags who lick their own shit off another man’s cock pretend that heterosexual sex is comparable to what they do. It’s so transparently retarded but conservatives are too dumb to rebut it.

Sexual desire for women by men and vice versa serves the purpose of reproduction. Whether any particular sexual encounter between a man and a woman leads to children is irrelevant to this. Whether an individual man or woman is infertile is also irrelevant to this. It’s like saying “some people cut off their legs and use them to play bongo drums, therefore the assertion that legs are for walking is absurd.”

Any attempt to make paraphilias equivalent to healthy reproductive sexuality is motivated by a desire to spread acceptance for the paraphilia rather than sincere belief.

Does "healthy reproductive sexuality" also cover oral sex and mutual masturbation if it's practiced by straight people? Cause I'm pretty sure that they're compelled to touch their partner's sexual organs by their reproductive instinct, but both of these activities were considered crimes against nature.

 

[Ted Gazynski]

Does "healthy reproductive sexuality" also cover oral sex and mutual masturbation if it's practiced by straight people? Cause I'm pretty sure that they're compelled to touch their partner's sexual organs by their reproductive instinct, but both of these activities were considered crimes against nature.

Neither of these things are physically unhealthy or detract from the heterosexual couple’s ability to have children and a healthy relationship in the way that homosexuality does. Sexual partners maintaining interest in one another is important to keep a relationship healthy. As long as it’s private and doesn’t veer into physically or mentally destructive behaviours, it really can’t be compared to the complete deviance of homosexuality.

I do actually believe that shit like anal sex is bad and that it is being made a widespread fetish by pornography, but that’s an entirely different question.

This is just bad whattaboutism. Homosexuality is categorically non-reproductive and paraphilic, heterosexuality can express itself non-reproductively but in essence it remains reproductive.

 

[Real Gay Autist]

Neither of these things are physically unhealthy or detract from the heterosexual couple’s ability to have children and a healthy relationship in the way that homosexuality does. Sexual partners maintaining interest in one another is important to keep a relationship healthy. As long as it’s private and doesn’t veer into physically or mentally destructive behaviours, it really can’t be compared to the complete deviance of homosexuality.

I do actually believe that shit like anal sex is bad and that it is being made a widespread fetish by pornography, but that’s an entirely different question.

This is just bad whattaboutism. Homosexuality is categorically non-reproductive and paraphilic, heterosexuality can express itself non-reproductively but in essence it remains reproductive.

I don't disagree entirely with your sentiment but think you are being absolutist in your approach and so would suggest you temper your stark conclusions somewhat. Homosexuality is not categorically non-reproductive; nor are paraphilias.

A lot of people have written on possible roles for homosexuality (human and non-human) from an evolutionary and evolutionary-psychological perspectives. A trendy theory in the early 2000s was the kin selection hypothesis (homosexuality results in more fit, non-reproducing adults to support offspring of their relatives/community/tribe and so its purpose is ultimately reproductive). The evidence on that is contradictory in empirical studies on humans (some of them quite janky). The role of kin selection seems to vary across cultures; notably, contemporary Western cultures seem not to support the hypothesis but some supporting evidence has been found in traditional Austronesian cultures (e.g. for some well known studies, cf. Bobrow & Bailey 2001 [SciHub], Rahman & Hull 2005 [SciHub] versus Vasey et al. 2007 [SciHub] on faʻafafine, Nila et al. 2008 [SciHub] on Javanese MSM). Playà et al. (2017; [SciHub]) present an large-scale, quantitative study of the kin selection hypothesis providing some support for the kin selection hypothesis (their methods, Likert scale + logistic regressions, are a bit simplistic but it's a really cool study) - it's safe to say that the hypothesis is still very much up for debate and it is far from true to state categorically that homosexuality is 'non-reproductive' .

In short, a whole subfield exists which is attempting to understand why homosexuality exists from an evolutionary perspective and the answer so far is that it is very complicated (as the answer tends to be when it comes to Darwinian thinking lol). Since you seem to think about these things in depth you'd probably be interested in this nice short summary piece in the New Scientist, Evolution myth: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality, which mentions a few ways this question has been addressed in humans and non-humans. Likewise, by the way, paraphilias may have a reproductive role in evolutionary terms (see i.a. Quinsey 2012 [SciHub]) for example because "certain paraphilic behaviors might be associated with above-average reproductive fitness (i.e., increased number of lifetime coital relations with fertile partners)" (Joyal & Ankfold 2017:2ff. [SciHub]).

From an evolutionary perspective, these things exist (for better or for worse) for some reason; since we see it in nature it's not to be dismissed as simply 'unnatural'. Its existence may be completely arbitrary, accidental or even somehow detrimental - it's very complex, we don't know and that's why this stuff is interesting. Excuse my sperging; I think a lot about this and assume you do too so hopefully the above is a somewhat interesting footnote to your comment.

 

[Noir drag freak]

I was creeped on by an older man as a kid and it's chicken and egg for me: did he pick me because I seemed like a little faggot, or did I get turned into a little faggot by that experience? Anyway my post is spergy enough but as I've said before I think reducing the origins of homosexuality to a Born This Way™ is inaccurate at best and harmful at worst.

I think that your focus is too narrower. I think that homosexuality probably stems from multiple causes. I probably asked you these questions before. You don’t have to answer them on a public forum. But what was your life like around the time the incident occurred? What was your relationships with your parents like? What are your relationship with your male and female authority figures? How comfortable were you with identity as boy? What was your relationships with your male peers like?

I don’t think the incident pushed you towards homosexuality. It was probably your environment along with the incident.

I don’t think being a little faggot had anything to do with the incident. The most important thing was that you were alone and probably vulnerable. The fagginess had nothing to do with it. If you were very autistic as a child that would make you a target.

 

[Noir drag freak]

I don't disagree entirely with your sentiment but think you are being absolutist in your approach and so would suggest you temper your stark conclusions somewhat. Homosexuality is not categorically non-reproductive; nor are paraphilias.

A lot of people have written on possible roles for homosexuality (human and non-human) from an evolutionary and evolutionary-psychological perspectives. A trendy theory in the early 2000s was the kin selection hypothesis (homosexuality results in more fit, non-reproducing adults to support offspring of their relatives/community/tribe and so its purpose is ultimately reproductive). The evidence on that is contradictory in empirical studies on humans (some of them quite janky). The role of kin selection seems to vary across cultures; notably, contemporary Western cultures seem not to support the hypothesis but some supporting evidence has been found in traditional Austronesian cultures (e.g. for some well known studies, cf. Bobrow & Bailey 2001 [SciHub], Rahman & Hull 2005 [SciHub] versus Vasey et al. 2007 [SciHub] on faʻafafine, Nila et al. 2008 [SciHub] on Javanese MSM). Playà et al. (2017; [SciHub]) present an large-scale, quantitative study of the kin selection hypothesis providing some support for the kin selection hypothesis (their methods, Likert scale + logistic regressions, are a bit simplistic but it's a really cool study) - it's safe to say that the hypothesis is still very much up for debate and it is far from true to state categorically that homosexuality is 'non-reproductive' .

In short, a whole subfield exists which is attempting to understand why homosexuality exists from an evolutionary perspective and the answer so far is that it is very complicated (as the answer tends to be when it comes to Darwinian thinking lol). Since you seem to think about these things in depth you'd probably be interested in this nice short summary piece in the New Scientist, Evolution myth: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality, which mentions a few ways this question has been addressed in humans and non-humans. Likewise, by the way, paraphilias may have a reproductive role in evolutionary terms (see i.a. Quinsey 2012 [SciHub]) for example because "certain paraphilic behaviors might be associated with above-average reproductive fitness (i.e., increased number of lifetime coital relations with fertile partners)" (Joyal & Ankfold 2017:2ff. [SciHub]).

From an evolutionary perspective, these things exist (for better or for worse) for some reason; since we see it in nature it's not to be dismissed as simply 'unnatural'. Its existence may be completely arbitrary, accidental or even somehow detrimental - it's very complex, we don't know and that's why this stuff is interesting. Excuse my sperging; I think a lot about this and assume you do too so hopefully the above is a somewhat interesting footnote to your comment.

What’s the point in talking with him? He has already reach conclusions. Also, I really love to see a study that addresses the occurrence of homosexuality and population density.

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

What’s the point in talking with him? He has already reach conclusions. Also, I really love to see a study that addresses the occurrence of homosexuality and population density.

"It's unnatural" "it doesn't produce children" "it's a dangerous paraphilia" are all the opinions of people who have a personal distaste for watching two guys kiss (and it's ALWAYS male homosexuality they have a problem with; you'll never see them talk about anything other than yucky poop dick and anuses because they're specifically grossed out by gay men) and use excuses that sound reasonably close to scientific objection to pretend that it's anything other than personal nausea.

Complain that gays prey on children? There's an argument to be had there. It's not like it doesn't happen. Complain about normalizing the creepier paraphilias? Yeah, that's something I'm not a fan of either. I'm sure the roads that lead us there are complex and don't have a one-demographic answer. But pretend that you're very concerned that a small subset of the population isn't constantly pumping out kids like a Quiverfull household? Fuck right off, you don't maintain that attitude toward anyone else- you just can't control your emotions around icky yucky gay guys and pretending your emotions are "rational" is boring.

 

[Absurdist Laughter]

Lol, humans only want to reproduce like some cancer. Sex is only for reproduction, not for self pleasure, strengthening bonds. Sure, where's my lighter to set a strawman ablaze.

 

[Ted_Breakfast]

The last guy to have any interest in me seemed nice at first, but then admitted he had this fetish for wanting to be treated like a corpse. It was so frightening and repulsive to me, I just gave up on the gay community. If this is the closest thing to a sweet guy I can find, I'm done. This was years ago.

 

[SomeDingus]

The last guy to have any interest in me seemed nice at first, but then admitted he had this fetish for wanting to be treated like a corpse. It was so frightening and repulsive to me, I just gave up on the gay community. If this is the closest thing to a sweet guy I can find, I'm done. This was years ago.

My main issue with the gay community is that instead of a dating pool, it's a dating cup. Most of the gay guys who aren't mentally deranged degenerates are either already with someone, or they're looking for a very specific type of guy.

 

[MalasaThalassa]

Does "healthy reproductive sexuality" also cover oral sex and mutual masturbation if it's practiced by straight people?

No

>"stop being larpy and puritanical about sex"

It's my body

 

[Bad Gateway]

Gay is okay

 

[Ted Gazynski]

A lot of people have written on possible roles for homosexuality (human and non-human) from an evolutionary and evolutionary-psychological perspectives. A trendy theory in the early 2000s was the kin selection hypothesis (homosexuality results in more fit, non-reproducing adults to support offspring of their relatives/community/tribe and so its purpose is ultimately reproductive). The evidence on that is contradictory in empirical studies on humans (some of them quite janky). The role of kin selection seems to vary across cultures; notably, contemporary Western cultures seem not to support the hypothesis but some supporting evidence has been found in traditional Austronesian cultures (e.g. for some well known studies, cf. Bobrow & Bailey 2001 [SciHub], Rahman & Hull 2005 [SciHub] versus Vasey et al. 2007 [SciHub] on faʻafafine, Nila et al. 2008 [SciHub] on Javanese MSM). Playà et al. (2017; [SciHub]) present an large-scale, quantitative study of the kin selection hypothesis providing some support for the kin selection hypothesis (their methods, Likert scale + logistic regressions, are a bit simplistic but it's a really cool study) - it's safe to say that the hypothesis is still very much up for debate and it is far from true to state categorically that homosexuality is 'non-reproductive' .

In short, a whole subfield exists which is attempting to understand why homosexuality exists from an evolutionary perspective and the answer so far is that it is very complicated (as the answer tends to be when it comes to Darwinian thinking lol). Since you seem to think about these things in depth you'd probably be interested in this nice short summary piece in the New Scientist, Evolution myth: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality, which mentions a few ways this question has been addressed in humans and non-humans. Likewise, by the way, paraphilias may have a reproductive role in evolutionary terms (see i.a. Quinsey 2012 [SciHub]) for example because "certain paraphilic behaviors might be associated with above-average reproductive fitness (i.e., increased number of lifetime coital relations with fertile partners)" (Joyal & Ankfold 2017:2ff. [SciHub]).

From an evolutionary perspective, these things exist (for better or for worse) for some reason; since we see it in nature it's not to be dismissed as simply 'unnatural'. Its existence may be completely arbitrary, accidental or even somehow detrimental - it's very complex, we don't know and that's why this stuff is interesting. Excuse my sperging; I think a lot about this and assume you do too so hopefully the above is a somewhat interesting footnote to your comment.

As is usual with these types of studies, they all seem totally inconclusive, especially when taken together.

I don’t think it’s surprising that people whose societies developed entirely separately like Europeans and Polynesians would view homosexuality differently, and it’s not impossible that one group began to incorporate homosexuals into a functional role. I do think that explanations hinging on genetic utility don’t make much sense, given the small average kin-group size and the low incidence of true homosexuality(it’s clearly not something that gave a group a substantial advantage). There were a lot of “excess” caregivers, from the naturally infertile to the elderly. One extra homosexual per 70-100 people doesn’t seem to be outside the bounds of accident, especially given evidence that homosexuality is associated with environmental/epigenetic factors such as hormone exposure.

I don’t have any firm views on what causes exclusive homosexuality, I’m more interested in the rapid rise of non-exclusive homosexual attraction in modern societies. Whatever the underlying truth of homosexuality, its widespread acceptance and celebration has IMO played a major role in breaking down the normative social aspect of sexuality.

When sex becomes a tool for pleasure, there’s ultimately no reason, beyond personal ability to induce arousal, to not engage in homosexual activity. A warm soft body is a warm soft body, skin is skin, and a hole is a hole, after all.

The simple exposure to something different from what is established as normal in their lives can lead a lot of people to expand their sexual horizons because sexuality is malleable. It’s not restricted to sex preferences either, the widening of libidinal horizons exposes people to a lot of other abnormal sexual behaviours, from “furry” shit to fat fetishism.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that my opposition to accepting homosexuality isn’t based on the idea that it’s unnatural, it’s rooted in my belief that society functions best when there are strong sexual norms and when reproduction and family formation are the things around which sexual norms are formed.

 

[Noir drag freak]

Gay is okay

I feel like that is a cope. Why can’t we come up with something more empowering.

"It's unnatural" "it doesn't produce children" "it's a dangerous paraphilia" are all the opinions of people who have a personal distaste for watching two guys kiss (and it's ALWAYS male homosexuality they have a problem with; you'll never see them talk about anything other than yucky poop dick and anuses because they're specifically grossed out by gay men) and use excuses that sound reasonably close to scientific objection to pretend that it's anything other than personal nausea.

Complain that gays prey on children? There's an argument to be had there. It's not like it doesn't happen. Complain about normalizing the creepier paraphilias? Yeah, that's something I'm not a fan of either. I'm sure the roads that lead us there are complex and don't have a one-demographic answer. But pretend that you're very concerned that a small subset of the population isn't constantly pumping out kids like a Quiverfull household? Fuck right off, you don't maintain that attitude toward anyone else- you just can't control your emotions around icky yucky gay guys and pretending your emotions are "rational" is boring.

Why do I have to justify homosexuality or homosexuals? Only Christians or Muslims have the compulsion to justify their choices in beliefs. Homosexuality is an action not a belief.

 

[Male Idiot]

It is a counter evolutionary error in their genes which makes them molest the kids.

It should be banned like back in the good old Reich/Soviet days. Its like glorifying a broken trashcan.

 

[Puerto Pollo]

My main issue with the gay community is that instead of a dating pool, it's a dating cup. Most of the gay guys who aren't mentally deranged degenerates are either already with someone, or they're looking for a very specific type of guy.

Talk to any of your straight male friends and you'll be glad you'll never have to deal with women, the niggers faggots of gender

 

[Noir drag freak]

Why is that when people talk about anti gay countries, they don’t mention how treatment varies by class and education? I find that life in anti gay countries is much more nuance than the media want people to believe.

 

[Mothra1988]

It is a counter evolutionary error in their genes which makes them molest the kids.

It should be banned like back in the good old Reich/Soviet days. Its like glorifying a broken trashcan.

You mean the Reich that came to power because of the Brownshirts who were famous for being a bunch of fags, even to the point Hitler is on record defending Rohm's homosexuality (before he decided to kill him to consolidate power)?

 

[Dave.]

Can someone explain to me why the term Demisexuality exists?

"Demisexual is a sexual orientation on the asexual spectrum defined as someone who does not experience sexual attraction until they have formed a deep emotional connection with someone. The connection can be romantic, platonic, or some other form of connection. What counts as a "close connection" can vary between demisexuals. Forming an emotional bond with someone does not mean that one is automatically attracted to said individual, as it just means there's now a possibility for one to feel attraction."
So you're not aggressively horny and you'd rather fuck people you know personally? That sounds completely normal.

 

[janedoe]

Can someone explain to me why the term Demisexuality exists?

"Demisexual is a sexual orientation on the asexual spectrum defined as someone who does not experience sexual attraction until they have formed a deep emotional connection with someone. The connection can be romantic, platonic, or some other form of connection. What counts as a "close connection" can vary between demisexuals. Forming an emotional bond with someone does not mean that one is automatically attracted to said individual, as it just means there's now a possibility for one to feel attraction."
So you're not aggressively horny and you'd rather fuck people you know personally? That sounds completely normal.

western world is oversexualised, to the point people think being a coomer is normal and not wanting to fuck anything that walks is some form of asexual.
this is also why a lot of genderspecial and made up flag people think they're some form of gay or asexual, because they don't experience attraction the way degenerates experience them, so they assume something is wrong with them.
or in faggot terms: they're uwu SPECIAL uwu

i can't swing a bat on twitter without hitting some hornypost or bitch whipping her titties out. people act like middleschoolers when it comes to not shutting up about sex and i can't tell if it's because a lot of them are actually kissless virgins or if it's just media brainwashing.

 

[Dave.]

western world is oversexualised, to the point people think being a coomer is normal and not wanting to fuck anything that walks is some form of asexual.
this is also why a lot of genderspecial and made up flag people think they're some form of gay or asexual, because they don't experience attraction the way degenerates experience them, so they assume something is wrong with them.
or in faggot terms: they're uwu SPECIAL uwu

i can't swing a bat on twitter without hitting some hornypost or bitch whipping her titties out. people act like middleschoolers when it comes to not shutting up about sex and i can't tell if it's because a lot of them are actually kissless virgins or if it's just media brainwashing.

A combination of both and a theory I've had that may or may not have been conceived "Sexual Nihilism". Essentially sex is so prevalent and so spoken about that any kind of luster or sacrality that it had before, because the only way to obtain was through forming up relationships (at least from a normality perspective), is so diluted and dull that people are starting to gradually tread the waters into more provocative territory because nothing about sex is provocative anymore. Nowadays people just pop ecstasy and fuck like rabbits because now that's the societal norm and much of our media likes to put that on pedestal. It's nothing new and history has shown that humanity are some horny bastards, but even back then access to it wasn't at the ready like social media is now. This is one theory I have, and in all honesty it's probably not an original theory at all, as to why the slippery slope is so talked about sometimes because of sexual nihilism.