Philip Gardiner, Homosexuality and Alchemy Disinformation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hitch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Name, your post shows the usual 'I'm a superior heterosexual' attitude exhibited by many unconscious hetero types. The tone of your post is offensive and arrogant. You show absolutely no empathy for a persecuted minority – it seems that you don't really want to understand anything, you're just looking for 'scientific' ammunition for your abusive ideas.

name said:
for starters, i'm not one of them
Well, name, I am 'one of them' and the attitude demonstrated in this phrase alone is disgusting. And not being one of 'them' according to you, is just for starters. What comes next? Burning at the stake? Doth name protest too much? Or are you truly terrified of 'the love that dare not speak its name'?

name said:
the few things (not facts !) i know about homosexuals are:
- plain folks dislike them, fervently. when one goes up in the scale of education, the dislike is expressed more in terms of derisory comments and exclusion from social activities; down the education scale the dislike is expressed rather in form of direct (physical) aggression.
- they are a significant minority of the population, at about 4% IIRC.
- the girls i classify broadly in three groups: one would be the 'strictly for fun' crowd, another (big) group those who have had BAD stories with men (rape, abuse by immediate family, ...), and a third group those who i'd term 'innate' and who discover the preference in themselves early on.
- the boys i classify along other lines: the aggressively promiscuous ones and those who have themselves in relative control. that probably has to do with my interaction with them rather than any other objective criterion.
- there is another group, the transgenders, who i dont even know where to put. only thing i know is i've met exactly on person from this group IRL. i felt marked aversion and disgust towards this person.
These are not facts, just bigoted assumptions. And your idea that boys are either aggressively promiscuous or 'relatively under control' is truly and astoundingly offensive. It shows absolutely no knowledge of gay men, just your deep-seated fears.

name said:
- plain folks dislike them, fervently.
What do you base this rubbish on? 'Plain folks' are no strangers to gay and lesbian people. Where do you think homosexuals and lesbians come from? The same place heterosexuals come from! In my experience, 'plain folks' can be far more compassionate and accepting than so-called intellectuals.

name said:
…when one goes up in the scale of education, the dislike is expressed more in terms of derisory comments and exclusion from social activities; down the education scale the dislike is expressed rather in form of direct (physical) aggression.
This is definitely questionable. When I was at school in the early 1970s, at an all-boys school, I did not come out, let alone tell any other students I was gay, for fear of physical violence. However, a boy I knew, who was in the same year as me, was completely out and everyone knew he was gay, yet he never suffered any physical attack or abuse, ever.

name said:
- they are a significant minority of the population, at about 4% IIRC.
This appears to be so - hXXp://www(dot)avert(dot)org/hsexu1.htm

In my experience, men who are at ease with their heterosexuality, or simply with sexuality, are also at ease with gay men – and these are usually the 'plain folks' you mention, who you suppose to 'fervently dislike' gay and lesbian people.

To paraphrase a paragraph from your post:

I've had as acquaintances heterosexuals of both genders, I've been privy to their idle chat, I've had some extensive and interesting conversations with some of them. In both genders, what strikes me most is the trophy-hunting approach towards mating and the sexually-tinged nature of almost any social activity. It looks to me almost as if they overcompensate for something that is missing.
Well, there is something missing for just about everyone on this planet – it's called consciousness, conscience, or empathy, and all three seem to be missing from your post.

You say:

name said:
- homosexuals/homosexuality have been integral and known traits of many ruling groups from history and present… conversely, they are almost absent from plain folks affairs.
Gay and lesbian people are absent from 'plain folks' affairs in the historical record because the deeds and lives of 'plain folks' were not recorded as were those of politicians and the aristocracy, not to mention institutionalised bigotry and persecution. William Naphy in Born To Be Gay presents a discussion of the ways in which homosexuals became scapegoats for the Black Death and how this has coloured attitudes ever since.

William Naphy said:
The simple fact is that the [150-year] period leading up to [c.1350] saw an increase in ecclesiastical and secular regulations aimed specifically at homosexuality as it became more and more associated with heretical movements.
And then along came the Black Death … if one was conspiracy-minded, one might think 'set-up'.

name said:
- (added) is innate homosexuality a selector for essential psychopathy ?
So that's why, when I read Lobaczewski, Hare, Stout and Salter, and so on, I can see myself mirrored in their pages. It's nothing to do with being ponerized from birth in a world of lies, just my 'innate homosexuality'. Thank you for explaining it to me.

Finally, here's a questionnaire for heterosexuals. You might like to consider these questions in the light of your arrogant and insulting post, which shows a bigoted lack of empathy and awareness.

Heterosexuality Questionnaire
(Attributed to Martin Rochlin, PhD, January 1977)

1. What do you think has caused you to be heterosexual?

2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of people of the same sex?

4. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?

5. Isn't it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?

6. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

7. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?

8. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?

9. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex? Why are they so promiscuous?

10. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?

11. If you were to have children, would you want them to be heterosexual knowing the problems they'd face?

12. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?

13. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?

14. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

15. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusively heterosexual lifestyle, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your homosexual potential?

16. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role playing?

17. Even with all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiralling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

18. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you, considering the menace of overpopulation?

19. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that could help you change if you really wanted to. Have you considered trying psychotherapy or even aversion therapy?

21. Could you really trust a heterosexual therapist/counsellor to be objective and unbiased? Don't you fear he/she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his/her own preferences?

22. How can you enjoy a full, satisfying sexual experience or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex when the differences are so vast? How can a man understand what pleases a woman, or vice-versa?
 
mada85 said:
Name, your post shows the usual 'I'm a superior heterosexual' attitude exhibited by many unconscious hetero types.
To me it sounded more like - I am not so sure hetero type :/

But I think we should stop bashing name- after all he displays the same understanding of the matter as majority of sleeping people,
the only thing that really sucks is - he has been on this forum for long enough to become Jedi and still didnt get it.
 
Ruth said:
If gays are given such a hard time by the PTB, surely they have some sort of hidden advantage? Or maybe not, afterall, we are dealing with sex here, which has been over-rated by 3D and 4D STS. There could be something more to it, though.
There may be some kind of 'hidden advantage', actually, that the PTB find threatening. John Boswell and William Naphy furnish us with a clue or two.

John Boswell said:
Harmodius and Aristogiton were Attic lovers who died trying to overthrow the tyrants Hippias and Hipparchus in the sixth century B.C. Famous throughout the ancient world as models of faithful affection and patriotic zeal, they were commemorated in art and literature for centuries after their deaths.
Harmodius and Aristogiton were both men. But note the linking of 'faithful affection' and 'patriotic zeal'. No government, particularly the US Gov, wants people with real patriotic zeal.

William Naphy said:
Greeks almost universally held that some form of same-sex love was good and indeed intrinsic to what they saw as the best in their civilisation. Thus, Greek thought repeatedly noted that the tyrants of the sixth century BCE [presumably Hippias and Hipparchus - my note, mada85] tried to abolish pederasty out of a political fear of the heroic and freedom-loving bonds that were formed between the males.
Naphy then presents a passage from Athenaeus, writing circa 200CE:

Because of these (homosexual) love affairs, then, tyrants, to whom such relationships were inimical, tried to abolish entirely relationships between males, wiping them out everywhere. Some even went so far as to burn down the athletic schools, regarding them as bulwarks in opposition to their own [power bases], and so demolished them; this was done by Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos.
What we see in the present day is not the 'burning of the schools' or attempts to 'abolish entirely relationships between males', but something far more insidious. That is, a kind of corporatising of same-sex male relationships, with the concomitant message that gay men are now free, having heroically defied the conditioning of centuries and realised their true identity, which is now defined within the narrow limits of sexual orientation and consumerism.

And, to reverse name's derogatory suggestion: Perhaps 4% homosexuals in the population are there as an antidote to 6% psychopaths? The two ratios are in the same ball-park…

Quotes taken from
Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell
Born to be Gay by William Naphy
 
when i wrote that post yesterday, i imagined it would ruffle some feathers. i did neither intend what i wrote to be insulting to anyone, nor did i count on it being so. for the hurt feelings i can only offer my apologies. re the rest, i will try to answer as best as i can.

laura said:
is what you have described above any different from the average heterosexual?
re your quote from my post: in degree, yes.

Anart said:
No, they're not facts - not even close to facts, actually. I find the statements you've made here and throughout the rest of your post to not only be incredibly insulting, but also bigoted, ignorant and indicative of some serious, deeply seated issues about your own sexuality and self-acceptance.
re insulting: again, i can only offer my apologies for that.

re bigoted, ignorant: how, exactly, does my post reveal me as somebody bigoted and ignorant ? bigoted would be equivalent to self-righteous, ignorant would be somebody who neither knows nor wants to know, as i understand both terms. my coming here with some lack of knowledge and asking questions, as dumb as they might be, would absolve me of both charges. or not ?

re those deep-seated issues with my sexuality and self-acceptance: i don't know. it is possible, but then i'd not be aware of those issues despite having in sum about 5 years of therapy under the belt. perhaps it is so that i've been there, done that and formed an opinion about where i stand and where not, what is good for me and what is not. how, exactly, does my expressing my views in this regard qualify me as having 'issues re my sexuality' ? which issues would these be ? if i was blunt in expressing my opinion, sorry again. i'll come to this in more detail.

re my "not facts": these are things which i've seen. i've labeled them as 'things not facts' because some of them may as well have been my interpretation. i am, in short, saying that what i've seen may not be representative, but just MY experiences.

(to be continued)
 
Cyre2067 said:
Well, as one of "them" I'm highly offended by your opinions. That link is to the opinions thread, which will show ya just how much your 'not facts' and otherwise are worth.

...

You could try asking, openly, without bringing any of the above garbage to the table, I'm sure anart and myself could give you interesting first person accounts of our formative years.
That link to an 'opinion' thread with my post on 'opionion' (correct link would be http://tinyurl.com/yqtrer) was perspicacious. since you cite me to myself regarding opinions, let me ask you the following: i happen to hold the opinion that the changes in legislation in several countries in the EU towards eliminating or ameliorating discrimination for same-sex couples, for example re child custody, inheritance, ... up to and including the full rights of marriage are a positive thing. my question is: if i had told you exactly that: would you have cited my post translating opinion from sanskrit to me in this case as well ?

re your qualifying my post as 'garbage' and your subsequent offer: thanks but it is not what i was thinking of. i was thinking more of something along the lines of the works of kevin mcdonald re another group, as divisive, lacking in academic merit, and without base in reality (not) as his work might be. and, i am sure i'll again meet some of those "other" ppl (gays and lesbians) in RL, and i'll be able to speak openly and without hurling epithets at each other, as i've done in the past repeatedly, and i'm also sure i will learn something from such encounters.


@Domivir re bisexuals: i don't really have much of an opinion about them. I'd say they are apparently being "mainstreamized" by the MSM. That is what it looks like from where I stand.

(to be continued)
 
name said:
re bigoted, ignorant: how, exactly, does my post reveal me as somebody bigoted and ignorant ? bigoted would be equivalent to self-righteous, ignorant would be somebody who neither knows nor wants to know, as i understand both terms. my coming here with some lack of knowledge and asking questions, as dumb as they might be, would absolve me of both charges. or not ?
Your post revealed your ignorance and bigotry because you describe those "unlike you" as being disgusting - as being wrong - and, finally, as being sick. It reveals an exclusive and superior mindset over those you deem disgusting - yes, you said aversion and disgust. Your ignorance is revealed by the fact that just because you may have had conversations with 'them', you think you know 'them' or how 'they' all think. It is a repellant way to perceive the world, in my perspective - not only is it a 'they're different from me so I hate them' way to view the world - but it reveals an extremely shallow understanding of humanity and the human experience in general, while also indicating that you think you see things clearly.


name said:
re those deep-seated issues with my sexuality and self-acceptance: i don't know. it is possible, but then i'd not be aware of those issues despite having in sum about 5 years of therapy under the belt.
First, five years of therapy means nothing. Therapy runs the gamut from effective self-analysis and discovery to sitting in a room with a therapist talking about everything in the world to avoid in-depth self-discovery. In and of itself, it means nothing - although it can often convince the patient that they're 'making progress' when they are not.


name said:
perhaps it is so that i've been there, done that and formed an opinion about where i stand and where not, what is good for me and what is not. how, exactly, does my expressing my views in this regard qualify me as having 'issues re my sexuality' ? which issues would these be ? if i was blunt in expressing my opinion, sorry again. i'll come to this in more detail.
Ah, so now it appears that you have had homosexual experiences and entered therapy to 'deal' with that from a veiwpoint that you were 'sick' to do it - that it is 'sick' in general and that you could 'cure' yourself. At least the source of your twisted and hurtful statements is becoming clear. You do not hate and are not disgusted by 'them' so much as you hate and are disgusted by yourself. Again and again we see this mind-set - from right wing christian evangelicals and from the halls of Congress - hatred for those who most closely represent that which they hate inside themselves - now that is a sickness.
 
@Anart:

i've just read your last post. i'm pretty consternated about what you say. what you are talking about is really not me. i'd offer up that most of what you are saying about my answers are YOUR INTERPRETATION of what i said, and i'd suggest you do read whatever you post before doing so. i just want to say again that i'm unhappy about obviously having hurt your feelings. you are welcome to use the email link if you want to discuss that in more privacy and think it will help clarify the situation. if you dont, i'll come to this last post of yours as fast as time permits, here in the thread. must go now, RL is calling.
 
Yes, you are correct, it is my interpretation of what you wrote. The fact remains that you are displaying very strong characteristics of having issues with your own sexuality. When you wrote,

name said:
perhaps it is so that i've been there, done that and formed an opinion about where i stand and where not
In this context, I interpreted that as you've been there, you've done that - you've experienced homosexuality in some sense. Or, were you simply stating that you had spoken with one or several of 'them' - if so, then you need to be much more clear about what you say. "Been there, done that" - means "Been there, done that" - it doesn't mean, "spent time around gay people who disgusted me".

Clearly, my interpretation of your post has upset you. Are you more upset that you feel that I have misunderstood you, or are you more upset that I understood, from what you wrote, that you've had homosexual experiences? Just curious.

You also mentioned the five years of therapy in direct relation to the question of whether you had issues with your own sexuality, so, again, the interpretation - from what you wrote - was that the two were related.

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you meant. However, the combination of these statements and the bigotry you've evidenced certainly points to someone who 'doth protest too much' - and, as I said, it is something we see again and again and again.

It is not, unfortunately, an unusual dynamic in our society. That does not mean it can't be remedied with some self-knowledge and self-acceptance.

Apologies for upsetting you, but I was simply making statements based on what you had written.

name said:
and i'd suggest you do read whatever you post before doing so.
Thanks for the advice, but rest assured - I always do.

As far as emailing you off-list, no thank you.
 
name said:
That link to an 'opinion' thread with my post on 'opionion' (correct link would be http://tinyurl.com/yqtrer) was perspicacious. since you cite me to myself regarding opinions, let me ask you the following: i happen to hold the opinion that the changes in legislation in several countries in the EU towards eliminating or ameliorating discrimination for same-sex couples, for example re child custody, inheritance, ... up to and including the full rights of marriage are a positive thing. my question is: if i had told you exactly that: would you have cited my post translating opinion from sanskrit to me in this case as well ?
I cite the entire thread, as it's relevant, and since your ego wouldn't let you see that and had a need to draw attention only to the self, let me explain it clearly: Opinions are worth jack, nada, nothing, zero. Your entire post, was opinions. No doubt you believe they were "supported by observations" - have you read ponerology? Do you know what the phrase "Subconscious Selection and Substitution of Data" means? Let me spell that out as well, just for clarity: You only absorbed data from your environment that supported your conscious or unconscious presuppositions.

Also choosing to ignore the second part of your 'question' to me, as it's loaded with conversive thinking and pseudologic.

Further - your apologies are hollow, from your response i don't see you trying to understand the gaps in your awareness, i see you going on the defensive and then counterattacking. The phrase, "ruffle some feathers" particularly stood out to me, for various reasons. It also contradicts itself: "i imagined it would ruffle some feathers. i did neither intend what i wrote to be insulting to anyone, nor did i count on it being so." Come'on name, drop the act. You knew it would insight the response that it did, because deep down you know it's flawed.

name said:
how, exactly, does my post reveal me as somebody bigoted and ignorant ? bigoted would be equivalent to self-righteous, ignorant would be somebody who neither knows nor wants to know, as i understand both terms. my coming here with some lack of knowledge and asking questions, as dumb as they might be, would absolve me of both charges. or not ?
From m-w(dot)com:
bigot - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
ignorant - destitute of knowledge or education

Others as well as myself saw both qualities in your initial post. If you truly want to understand this phenomena and are unable to SEE it, then go back, read you post, and then read all the replies again. Cut off any internal monologue that justifies the self and just read it openly, take it in, and then maybe you'll be able to SEE it. Further - the way in which you asked your questions were loaded with prejudice and subjectivity, they weren't 'open', so in that sense your 'asking them' doesn't absolve you of anything.

This confused me:

name said:
re your qualifying my post as 'garbage' and your subsequent offer: thanks but it is not what i was thinking of. i was thinking more of something along the lines of the works of kevin mcdonald re another group, as divisive, lacking in academic merit, and without base in reality (not) as his work might be.
As you provided no links I have no idea what Kevin Mcdonald's works are. Given that, I can't understand what you're trying to say here. My preliminary analysis of it is that you aren't seeking knowledge about homosexuals from homosexuals themselves, nor are you interested in real information. You want ammo, you want something that justifies the prejudices you already have.
 
Let me add a few things that I have observed in my 55 years of living.

First of all, I have had several good friends who were/are homosexuals (male and female). I don't look at them through the eyes of "what is your sexual orientation" and I hope that no one looks at me that way. After all, sexual orientation is really a private matter. I don't see any need whatsoever for there to be "gay bars" or "gay hang-outs" since any bar, restaurant, hang-out or whatever ought to be for human beings.

Second, I know that there are several "causes" for homosexuality and each cause can be a strong factor in the type of person one is dealing with. One cause can be that genes have been activated (or not) due to gestational environment, birth order, diet of the mother, maybe EM waves on the planet, and so on. In short, that would be a strictly physical "cause." The body is of one type and the "gender triggers" are of another type. In such a case If the person decides to choose to go the way that the body is constructed and deny the "gender triggers" there might be a lot of misery.

From a spiritual point of view, another cause can be karmic. That is, a person who persecuted homosexuals in a previous life might be born as one. This situation could involve one or more of the above processes as the mode of manifestation.

Another cause can be that a person has been born a man a number of times in a row and just feels more "manly." Again, this "spiritual platform" can activate the various "gender triggers" mentioned above.

And then, there is another, actually more frightening form of homosexuality that IS related to psychopathy, but this is almost (as far as I can see) exclusively a male thing. It is not homosexuality for any of the ordinary reasons but simply emerges from a mind-set that sees sex as a physical appetite like any other and will use whatever or whoever is present to satisfy those urges. The "partner" is never anything other than an object to be assimilated in some way.

In case most of you haven't noticed, or haven't been doing the research, again and again we find that people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, and so on - even if they live lives as heterosexuals - are, by nature this particular kind of homosexual, one that utilizes homosexuality as a means to dominate other men. My guess is that this was the real background to the much vaunted "Greek Pederasty". It wasn't about "loving little boys" it was about corrupting and controlling them a la Ponerology - they were objects, helpless and impressionable ones at that.

There is a close relationship between this type of psychopathic homosexuality and pedophilia because, as I said, it is about dominance, control, subjecting those weaker than oneself. It is this kind of homosexuality that has gotten the most press and is the reason that there is an almost knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality in general. If you are using someone else to make you feel good and what makes you feel good is dominance and control, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, you are abusing the creative energy of sex.

We also notice that the latter kind of psychopathic homosexuality is also quite often connected to things like B & D and strange sexual practices that have nothing to do with deep, spiritual love and honoring and holding up to spiritual cleanliness and divinity the flesh of another person.

Pornography is also related to the abuse of sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual. By it's very nature, it promotes "wishful thinking" and fantasy and the essence of STS is wishful thinking. It also objectifies another human being. Yeah, I know that there are human looking beings that really get into being "objectified" for pornography, but if you are on a spiritual path, you do not feed into that energy for any reason.

For the most part, I have observed that people who are "into" pornography wouldn't know what to do with a real person if there was one there. Those that have relationships and still seek porn are even sadder because it suggests that their relationship with a real human being (or OP, who knows?) is so poverty stricken that they still must seek to live in a realm of "wishful thinking."

Now, perhaps it is time to look at what Gurdjieff had to say about sex and the "abuse of sex."

When speaking of "types" G. once said:

"Have you noticed what a tremendous part 'type' plays in the relationship between man and woman?"

"I have noticed," I said, "that throughout his whole life every man comes into contact with women of a definite type and every woman comes into contact with men of a definite type. As though .the type of woman for every man had been predetermined and the type of man predetermined for every woman."

"There is a good deal of truth in that," said G. "But in that form it is, of course, much too general. Actually you did not see types of men and women but types of events. What I speak of refers to the real type, that is to say, to essence. If people were to live in essence one type would always find the other type and wrong types would never come together.

"But people live in personality. Personality has its own interests and its own tastes which have nothing in common with the interests and the tastes of essence. Personality in our case is the result of the wrong work of centers. For this reason personality can dislike precisely what essence likes—and like what essence does not like. Here is where the struggle between essence and personality begins. Essence knows what it wants but cannot explain it. Personality does not want to hear of it and takes no account of it. It has its own desires. And it acts in its own way. But its power does not continue beyond that moment. After that, in some way or other, the two essences have to live together. And they hate one another. No sort of acting can help here. In one way or another essence or type gains the upper hand and decides.

"In this case nothing can be done by reason or by calculation. Neither can so-called love help because, in the real meaning of the word, mechanical man cannot love—with him it loves or it does not love.

"At the same time sex plays a tremendous role in maintaining the mechanicalness of life. Everything that people do is connected with 'sex': politics, religion, art, the theater, music, is all 'sex.'

"Do you think people go to the theater or to church to pray or to see some new play? That is only for the sake of appearances. The principal thing, in the theater as well as in church, is that there will be a lot of women or a lot of men. This is the center of gravity of all gatherings. What do you think brings people to cafes, to restaurants, to various fetes? One thing only. Sex: it is the principal motive force of all mechanicalness. All sleep, all hypnosis, depends upon it.

"You must try to understand what I mean. Mechanicalness is especially dangerous when people try to explain it by something else and not by what it really is. When sex is clearly conscious of itself and does not cover itself up by anything else it is not the mechanicalness about which I am speaking. On the contrary sex which exists by itself and is not dependent on anything else is already a great achievement. But the evil lies in this constant self-deception!"

"What then is the deduction; should it be so or should it be changed?" asked someone.

G. smiled.

"That is something people always ask," he said. "Whatever they may be speaking about, they ask: Ought it to be like that and how can it be changed, that is, what ought to be done in such a case? As though it were possible to change anything, as though it were possible to do anything. You at least ought to have realized by now how naive such questions are.

"Cosmic forces have created this state of affairs and cosmic forces control this state of affairs. And you ask: Can it be left like that or should it be changed!

God himself could change nothing.

"Do you remember what was said about the forty-eight laws? They cannot be changed, but liberation from a considerable portion of them is possible, that is to say, there is a possibility of changing the state of affairs for oneself, it is possible to escape from the general law.

"You should understand that in this case as well as in all others the general law cannot be changed. But one can change one's own position in relation to this law; one can escape from the general law. The more so since in this law about which I speak, that is, in the power of sex over people, are included many different possibilities. It includes the chief form of slavery and it is also the chief possibility of liberation. This is what you must understand.

"'New birth,' of which we have spoken before, depends as much upon sex energy as do physical birth and the propagation of species.

"'Hydrogen' si 12 is the 'hydrogen' which represents the final product of the transformation of food in the human organism. This is the matter with which sex works and which sex manufactures. It is 'seed' or 'fuit.'

"'Hydrogen' si 12 can pass into do of the next octave with the help of an 'additional shock.' But this 'shock' can be of a dual nature and different octaves can begin, one outside the organism which has produced si, and the other in the organism itself. The union of male and female si 12 and all that accompanies it constitutes the 'shock' of the first kind and the new octave begun with its help develops independently as a new organism or a new life.

"This is the normal and natural way to use the energy of si 12.

"But in the same organism there is a further possibility. And this is the possibility of creating a new life within the actual organism, in which the si 12 has been manufactured, without the union of the two principles, the male and the female.

"A new octave then develops within the organism, not outside it

"This is the birth of the 'astral body.'

"You must understand that the 'astral body' is born of the same material, of the same matter, as the physical body, only the process is different. The whole of the physical body, all its cells, are, so to speak, permeated by emanations of the matter si 12. And when they have become sufficiently saturated the matter si 12 begins to crystallize. The crystallization of this matter constitutes the formation of the 'astral body.'

"The transition of matter si 12 into emanations and the gradual saturation of the whole organism by it is what alchemy calls 'transmutation' or transformation. It is first this transformation of the physical body into the astral that alchemy called the transformation of the 'coarse' into the 'fine' or the transformation of base metals into gold.

"Completed transmutation, that is to say, the formation of the 'astral body,' is possible only in a healthy, normally functioning organism. In a sick, or a perverted, or a crippled organism, no transmutation is possible."

"Is complete sexual abstinence necessary for transmutation and is sexual abstinence, in general, useful for work on oneself?" we asked him.

"Here there is not one but a number of questions," said G.

"In the first place sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation only in certain cases, that is, for certain types of people. For others it is not at all necessary. And with yet others it comes by itself when transmutation begins. I will explain this more clearly.

"For certain types a long and complete sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation to begin; this means in other words that without a long and complete sexual abstinence transmutation will not begin. But once it has begun abstinence is no longer necessary.

"In other cases, that is, with other types, transmutation can begin in a normal sexual life—and on the contrary, can begin sooner and proceed better with a very great outward expenditure of sex energy.

"In the third case the beginning of transmutation does not require abstinence, but, having begun, transmutation takes the whole of sexual energy and puts an end to normal sexual life or the outward expenditure of sex energy.

"Then the other question—'Is sexual abstinence useful for the work or not?'

"It is useful if there is abstinence in all centers. If there is abstinence in one center and full liberty of imagination in the others, then there could be nothing worse.

"And still more, abstinence can be useful if a man knows what to do with the energy which he saves in this way. If he does not know what to do with it, nothing whatever can be gained by abstinence."

"Speaking in general, what is the most correct form of life in this connection from the point of view of the work?"

"It is impossible to say. I repeat that while a man does not know it is better for him not to attempt anything. Until he has new and exact knowledge it will be quite enough if his life is guided by the usual rules and principles. If a man begins to theorize and invent in this sphere, it will lead to nothing except psychopathy.

"But it must again be remembered that only a person who is completely normal as regards sex has any chance in the work. Any kind of 'originality,' strange tastes, strange desires, or, on the other hand, fears, constantly working 'buffers,' must be destroyed from the very beginning. Modem education and modem life create an enormous number of sexual psychopaths. They have no chance at all in the' work.

"Speaking in general, there are only two correct ways of expending sexual energy— normal sexual life and transmutation. All inventions in this sphere are very dangerous.

"People have tried abstinence from times beyond memory. Sometimes, very rarely, it has led to something but in most cases what is called abstinence is simply exchanging normal sensations for abnormal, because the abnormal are more easily hidden.

"But it is not about this that I wish to speak. You must understand where lies the chief evil and what makes for slavery. It is not in sex itself but in the abuse of sex.

"But what the abuse of sex means is again misunderstood. People usually take this to be either excess or perversion. But these are comparatively innocent forms of abuse of sex.

"And it is necessary to know the human machine very well in order to grasp what abuse of sex in the real meaning of these words is.

"It means the wrong work of centers in relation to sex, that is, the action of the sex center through other centers, and the action of other centers through the sex center; or, to be still more precise, the functioning of the sex center with energy borrowed from other centers and the functioning of other centers with energy borrowed from the sex center."

"Can sex be regarded as an independent center?" asked one of those present.

"It can," said G. "At the same time if all the lower story is taken as one whole, then sex can be regarded as the neutralizing part of the moving center."

"With what 'hydrogen' does the sex center work?" asked another.

This question had interested us for a long time but we had not previously been able to answer it. And G., when he had been asked before, had never given a direct reply.

"The sex center works with 'hydrogen' 12," he said on this occasion, "that is to say, it ought to work with it. This is si 12. But the fact is that it very rarely works with its proper hydrogen. Abnormalities in the working of the sex center require special study.

"In the first place it must be noted that normally in the sex center as well as in the higher emotional and the higher thinking centers, there is no negative side. In all the other centers except the higher ones, in the thinking, in the emotional, in the moving, in the instinctive, in all of them there are, so to speak, two halves—the positive and the negative; affirmation and negation, or 'yes' and 'no,' in the thinking center, pleasant and unpleasant sensations in the moving and instinctive centers.

"There is no such division in the sex center. There are no positive and negative sides in it. There are no unpleasant sensations or unpleasant feelings in it; there is either a pleasant sensation, a pleasant feeling, or there is nothing, an absence of any sensation, complete indifference.

"But in consequence of the wrong work of centers it often happens that the sex center unites with the negative part of the emotional center or with the negative part of the instinctive center. And then, stimulation of a certain kind of the sex center, or even any stimulation at all of the sex center, calls forth unpleasant feelings and unpleasant sensations. People who experience unpleasant feelings and sensations which have been evoked in them through ideas and imagination connected with sex are inclined to regard them as a great virtue or as something original; in actual fact it is simply disease.

"Everything connected with sex should be either pleasant or indifferent. Unpleasant feelings and sensations all come from the emotional center or the instinctive center.

"This is the 'abuse of sex.'

"It is necessary, further, to remember that the sex center works with 'hydrogen' 12. This means that it is stronger and quicker than all other centers. Sex, in fact, governs all other centers. The only thing in ordinary circumstances, that is, when man has neither consciousness nor will, that holds the sex center in submission is 'buffers.' 'Buffers' can entirely bring it to nought, that is, they can stop its normal manifestation. But they cannot destroy its energy. The energy remains and passes over to other centers, finding expression for itself through them; in other words, the other centers rob the sex center of the energy which it does not use itself.

"The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for.

"The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or politics—it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories.

"The emotional center preaches Christianity, abstinence, asceticism, or the fear and horror of sin, hell, the torment of sinners, eternal fire, all this with the energy of the sex center. ... Or on the other hand it works up revolutions, robs, bums, kills, again with the same energy.

"The moving center occupies itself with sport, creates various records, climbs mountains, jumps, fences, wrestles, fights, and so on.

"In all these instances, that is, in the work of the thinking center as well as in the work of the emotional and the moving centers, when they work with the energy of the sex center, there is always one general characteristic and this is a certain particular vehemence and, together with it, the uselessness of the work in question.

"Neither the thinking nor the emotional nor the moving centers can ever create anything useful with the energy of the sex center. This is an example of the 'abuse of sex.

"But this is only one aspect of it. Another aspect consists in the fact that, when the energy of the sex center is plundered by the other centers and spent on useless work, it has nothing left for itself and has to steal the energy of other centers which is much lower and coarser than its own.

"And yet the sex center is very .important for the general activity, and particularly for the inner growth of the organism, because, working with 'hydrogen' 12, it can receive a very fine food of impressions, such as none of the ordinary centers can receive.

"The fine food of impressions is very important for the manufacture of the higher 'hydrogens.' But when the sex center works with energy that is not its own, that is, with the comparatively low 'hydrogens' 48 and 24, its impressions become much coarser and it ceases to play the role in the organism which it could play.

"At the same time union with, and the use of its energy by, the thinking center creates far too great an imagination on the subject of sex, and in addition a tendency to be satisfied with this imagination.

"Union with the emotional center creates sentimentality or, on the contrary, jealousy, cruelty. This is again a picture of the 'abuse of sex.'"

"What must be done to struggle against the 'abuse of sex'?" asked somebody present.

G. laughed.

"I was just waiting for that question," he said. "But you already ought to understand that it is just as impossible to explain to a man who has not yet begun to work on himself and does not know the structure of the machine what the 'abuse of sex' means, as it is to say what must be done to avoid these abuses.

"Right work on oneself begins with the creation of a permanent center of gravity. When a permanent center of gravity has been created everything else begins to be disposed and distributed in subordination to it.

"The question comes to this: From what and how can a permanent center of gravity be created? And to this may be replied that only a man's attitude to the work, to school, his valuation of the work, and his realization of the mechanicalness and aimlessness of everything else can create in him a permanent center of gravity.

"The role of the sex center in creating a general equilibrium and a permanent center of gravity can be very big. According to its energy, that is to say, if it uses its own energy, the sex center stands on a level with the higher emotional center. And all the other centers are subordinate to it. Therefore it would be a great thing if it worked with its own energy. This alone would indicate a comparatively very high level of being. And in this case, that is, if the sex center worked with its own energy and in its own place, all other centers could work correctly in their places and with their own energies."
Now, just in case some of you think that when Gurdjieff remarked "only a person who is completely normal as regards sex has any chance in the work. Any kind of 'originality,' strange tastes, strange desires, or, on the other hand, fears, constantly working 'buffers,' must be destroyed from the very beginning that he was talking about homosexuality, think again! I don't think that he considered homosexuality as a "strange taste or desire" or a perversion if it was proper use of the energy of the sexual center. However, he most certainly would have included pornography, pedophilia, B & D etc as such. One only has to recall his take on Aliester Crowley who was into all that psychopathic stuff:

True to his Caucasian heritage, [Gurdjieff] dispensed hospitality in abundant quantities. To Aleister Crowley, for example, who came to the Prieure for help with his drug addiction, Gurdjieff showed all due consideration - until Crowley was about to leave.

"Mister, you go?" Gurdjieff inquired. Crowley assented. "You have been guest?" - a fact which the visitor could hardly deny. "Now you go, you are no longer guest?" Crowley - no doubt wondering whether his host had lost his grip on reality and was wandering in a semantic wilderness - humored his mood by indicating that he was on his way back to Paris. But Gurdjieff, having made the point that he was not violating the canons of hospitality, changed on the instant into the embodiment of righteous anger. "You filthy," he stormed, "you dirty inside! Never again you set foot in my house!" . . . Whitefaced and shaking, the Great Beast crept back to Paris with his tail between his legs.(James Webb, The Harmonious Circle: The Lives and Work of G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, and Their Followers (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1980) p. 315)
And one should also remember that, after closing his school and discharging all his disappointing students, Gurdjieff seems to have thought that a group of women, most of whom were lesbians, was the correct repository for his teachings.

In 1935, a group of remarkable women began meeting in Paris with the extraordinary spiritual teacher G. I. Gurdjieff. The group, which ultimately numbered seven, called itself 'the Rope,' because Gurdjieff told its members to help one another like mountain climbers making a difficult ascent. All except one were lesbian, most were American and nearly all were famous.

Patterson (Eating the "I") is fascinated by Gurdjieff's mysterious decision to teach these women directly, since by that time Gurdjieff had virtually abandoned teaching to focus on writing. Shedding light on the Rope by meticulously pulling together material archived in libraries around the United States, he draws on the papers of the brilliant Jane Heap, co-founder with Margaret Anderson of the groundbreaking literary magazine, the Little Review; of the dramatically emotive Anderson; of Kathryn Hulme, author of The Nun's Story; and of the beautiful, sensitive journalist Solita Solano.

Patterson relies on Solano's notes to reconstruct the dialogues that took place during the lunches and dinners the women shared with Gurdjieff until 1939. He is reticent regarding his opinions about why Gurdjieff chose to lavish such care and attention on the Rope, but he finds resonance in Gurdjieff's comment to three of the women, "You very dirty…but have something very good—many people have not got—very special." The narrative conveys the profundity, originality and surprising tenderness of Gurdjieff as he strove to open up the souls of these uncommonly intelligent and spirited women. http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/50bookexcerpts/lotrrevw.htm
No subject is totally simple, cut and dried. There is good and there is evil and there is the specific context that determines which is which.
 
name said:
i've just read your last post. i'm pretty consternated about what you say. what you are talking about is really not me. i'd offer up that most of what you are saying about my answers are YOUR INTERPRETATION of what i said, and i'd suggest you do read whatever you post before doing so.
I'd say that Anart's 'interpretation' of what you have been writing is dead on the mark.

I suggest you reread what you have posted with enough openness and humility to understand what others here are trying to point out to you. We all have an image of ourselves, of how we see ourselves, and there is another image that we project to others. Obviously, if you really think it is a question of interpretation, then the image you are projecting to others is way out of sync with how you see yourself. One of the aims of this forum is to help us bring those two aspects of ourselves into harmony. Most often this happens by getting a mirror, that is, by being shown exactly where our self-image and our public image conflict. If you are sincere in wanting to better understand yourself, as opposed to just expressing your opinions, read what Anart has said to you.

But then, again, that may not be the reason you are here at all.

Time will tell.
 
Deckard said:
But I think we should stop bashing name
I didn't see anyone bashing name. I saw it the other way around. How do you see giving feedback to a harmful program as bashing?

name said:
re bigoted, ignorant: how, exactly, does my post reveal me as somebody bigoted and ignorant ? bigoted would be equivalent to self-righteous, ignorant would be somebody who neither knows nor wants to know, as i understand both terms. my coming here with some lack of knowledge and asking questions, as dumb as they might be, would absolve me of both charges. or not ?
Your questions were based on flawed and harmful opinions. You didn't frame your post in a way that questioned these opinions but built 'questions' around bigoted statements. I don't think this is much about 'absolving charges,' but it is a chance to learn.

I found almost every word of your post is bigoted. Here's why I think so.

name said:
why not take a real look at real homosexuals/homosexuality
Your 'real' look at homosexuality is that those who have this orientation are not of your group who you call 'plain folk.' This is the basis of bigotry.

name said:
rather than theorizing around the obviously false (diversionary) premise of homosexuality having anything to do with resurrection ?
There are some instances when homosexuality may have something to do with an individuals evolution, particularly in cases of denial - either of their own homosexuality or of others. Thinking that those with a homosexual preference are not normal people is a case of such denial.

name said:
for starters, i'm not one of them,
It's already been said in other's responses, but I'll state it here too for the sake of inclusiveness. Your use of 'them' puts homosexuals in lessor category, one that is not normal - and in the context of your post, 'normal' here can also imply Lobaczewski's definition. An important distinction is that it seems you see homosexuals not normal because of a sexual orientation, osit.

Imagine an Israeli writing about Arabs and starting off by saying, "For starters, I'm not one of them." Can you see the prejudice in that?

name said:
homosexuals and homosexuality (of both genders) are one of the few things which are a 200% turn-off to me.
A '200% turn off' is another way of saying revolting. You find people who are just being themselves to be revolting. Why is that?

name said:
- plain folks dislike them, fervently.
So in order to be 'plain folk' you must fervently dislike homosexuals. Also, you imply that homosexuals are not plain folk.

name said:
when one goes up in the scale of education, the dislike is expressed more in terms of derisory comments and exclusion from social activities; down the education scale the dislike is expressed rather in form of direct (physical) aggression.
Drawing from everything else you wrote it seems that you think this dislike is a normal response to the 'psychologically deviant homosexuals'. Is that correct?

name said:
- the girls i classify broadly in three groups: one would be the 'strictly for fun' crowd, another (big) group those who have had BAD stories with men (rape, abuse by immediate family, ...), and a third group those who i'd term 'innate' and who discover the preference in themselves early on.

- the boys i classify along other lines: the aggressively promiscuous ones and those who have themselves in relative control. that probably has to do with my interaction with them rather than any other objective criterion.
An initial odd impression I got was in wondering why you are referring to those making adult decisions, such as sexual interaction, as children: 'boys and girls'?

The other question is why do you feel the need to categorize/ label someone else's personal sexual history?

name said:
- there is another group, the transgenders, who i dont even know where to put. only thing i know is i've met exactly on person from this group IRL. i felt marked aversion and disgust towards this person.
I don't know the extent or happenings of your interaction with the one person who was transgender, but from everything else you state it seems you felt marked aversion and disgust toward someone who was just being who they are. Why is that?

name said:
i've been privy to their idle chat,
Another reference that homosexuals are different than regular people. You're implying that there is some secret communication between this sect of 'non-normal and dysfunctional people' that normal people don't correspond with. This is untrue. I live in a city that is gay friendly and have a great many friends and acquaintances that are gay. It's all the same idle chatter, sexually related or not.

name said:
in both genders, what strikes me most is the trophy-hunting approach towards mating and the sexually-tinged nature of almost any social activity.
"Trophy-hunting" and "mating" are both animalistic references. By reading between the lines, you're saying those with a homosexual orientation are animals. I doubt this was conscious but it goes along with your bigoted view that homosexuals aren't regular, normal people.

name said:
it looks to me almost as if they overcompensate for something that is missing.
Most all the world is, probably about 94% of it.

name said:
- during the last 10-15 years, homosexuals have been elevated into a state of semi-divinity, of minor deities in the ponerological panteon of politically-correct minority groups, akin to jews, women, "immigrants", ...
The 'ponerological pantheon of politically-correct minority groups' includes only one group: psychopaths. All other 'minority' groups have been oppressed, divided, humiliated and made to feel like lessor human beings just because of some difference of the color of their skin, sexual orientation, gender or anything else the psychopaths can use to divert attention away from the real difference in the races: that there are those who are human beings and there are those who are not. That you seem to ignore the extent of suffering that has been imposed on 'minorities' and mock homosexuals who are a part of this, is a symptom of your supreme absence of empathy.

name said:
- homosexuals/homosexuality have been integral and known traits of many ruling groups from history and present: nazis, catholic church, military officialty (especially special forces), royal courts across europe and elsewhere, diplomacy. conversely, they are almost absent from plain folks affairs.
Laura already addressed the dynamic of psychopathy and preference-free sexual dominance. That you're relating homosexuality to psychological deviancy through twisted support is revealing your bigotry.

What in the world are you talking about 'absent from plain folks affairs?' Can you get that when someone with a homosexual orientation engages in an affair, it is a plain folks affair?

name said:
- concluding from their social activity, i'd say that they form an inverse pyramid (in numbers and activity) in relation to affluence/education of the general population,similar to what another distinct population group does.
Laura already addressed the dynamic of psychopathy and preference-free sexual dominance. That you're relating homosexuality to psychological deviancy through twisted support is revealing your bigotry.

name said:
- WHY are they being promoted to so many positions of power ?
Laura already addressed the dynamic of psychopathy and preference-free sexual dominance. That you're relating homosexuality to psychological deviancy through twisted support is revealing your bigotry.

name said:
- is their new 'protected' status and the promotion to positions of power of many of them originary within the ranks of their own subculture, or does it originate from somewhere else ? if elsewhere, from where/whom ?
There is no 'protected status' for those who have a homosexual orientation, there is such for psychopaths though. Laura already addressed the dynamic of psychopathy and preference-free sexual dominance. That you're relating homosexuality to psychological deviancy through twisted support is revealing your bigotry.

name said:
- WHY are they interesting enough to the pathocracy that they have acquired a 'protected' status ?
See above.

name said:
- is it possible that homosexuals as a group express psychological traits useful for pathocracy statistically more often than the rest of the population ?
- (edited) more in detail: if one could do a Venn diagram showing: whole population, groups in power, psychological traits as per lobaczewski, homosexuals: how (quantitatively) would all these overlap ?
- (added) is innate homosexuality a selector for essential psychopathy ?
Laura already addressed the dynamic of psychopathy and preference-free sexual dominance. That you're relating homosexuality to psychological deviancy through twisted support is revealing your bigotry.

name said:
last but not least, i find it interesting that somebody would come to this forum with what has been exposed as disinfo and expect not only to get a pass but also that nobody here would take an attentive look back at them.
An 'attentive look back' at this person was given, and as a result they were exposed as being disinfo. However, your 'attentive look back' has nothing to do with truth and lies but about sexual orientation, as though the issue warrants some danger.

name said:
BTW: i'd be grateful for any reference (URL) where i can read founded psychological information about homosexuals.
Here's one that deals with homosexuality and homophobia:

Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?

Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr
University of Georgia

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who ad-
mitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homo-
phobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups
on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).
The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosex-
ual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also com-
pleted an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases
in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic
men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in
aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic
individual is either unaware of or denies.
 
Name said:
i'd be grateful for any reference (URL) where i can read founded psychological information about homosexuals
A historical perspective:
Is homosexuality Biologically influenced? by LeVay and Hamer, Scientific American, 1994

The Development of Sexual Orientation by Dr. Money, Prof of Medical Psychology and Pediatrics, Emeritus, at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Biological Exuberance. Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.
by Bruce Bagemihl:
review by Gert Korthof
review by Paul H. Harvey, Nature 397, 402 – 403, 1999, Bestiary of Chaos and Biodiversity

Some latest data:
Genetics and bisexuality By Vincent Savolainen and Laurent Lehmann
Nature, V 445, p 158-159, January 11 2007
Nature said:
A population-genetic model indicates that if there is a gene responsible for homosexual behaviour it can readily spread in populations. The model also predicts widespread bisexuality in humans.
[…]for a large set of costs and benefits, the gay allele can invade a population. Under overdominance, once a gay allele has entered a population it will be maintained in a polymorphic equilibrium, and this is easier if the homosexual gene is autosomal rather than X-linked. Further, under sexually antagonistic selection, the gay allele may even go to fixation — that is, each individual will become homozygous for this allele — thus
implying widespread bisexuality.

This theoretical framework is an advance in evolutionary biology and studies of human behaviour because it generates several testable predictions: for example, if a gene influencing homosexuality is linked to the X chromosome, then it would support the sexual-antagonism hypothesis rather than overdominance.
Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained
New Scientist
Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene
 
SAO said:
But if you know your own ignorance and incompetence in the matter, why proceed to say what you already know is incompetent and ignorant?
my intention was to put clear where i stood, or where i thought i stood,before posting my questions. after having read thru the answers i got, henry's post might also be be an answer.

SAO said:
Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by "turn-off"? Sexually speaking, heterosexuals aren't suposed to be "turned on" by homosexual relations, and vice versa. So I don't think that's the meaning of the word "turn off" you had in mind. Perhaps yours is closer to "dislike"? But why?
i thought what i said was clear: it is a turn-off to me. see also my answer(s) to Anart. and it is turn-off rather than, dislike since you ask.

SAO said:
Some do, some don't. There is a reason for why certain people dislike them. Sometimes it's their own sexual insecurity, fears, or feelings of inadequency and the desire to prove something to themselves and to others because of it. Sometimes it's cultural/family/community/religious conditioning. But it varies from region to region, community to community. I think it's very similar if not the same as racism.
it is what i've seen over and over. let me also tell you about raul, the first gay i met in my life. at about age 13 my stepfather bought a flat. we lived in the first floor, and in the third floor lived raul with his family, some years older than me, then perhaps 16-17. raul was gay, with a vengeance. to hear him speak or to see him walk was to know about that. the girls in the neighborhood loved him, the boys made fun of him but otherwise left him in peace because he was nice; they (me included) mostly avoided him. i went to his flat couple of times, once b/c his mother organized a party for his birthday and invited the kids from the neighborhood in what i think in retrospect was an attempt at breaking thru the ostracism the whole family was subject to b/c of raul. i also remember raul often had signs of having been beaten up. raul went to a vocational school and learned accounting. he did not finish school but eventually moved to santiago (the capital) at the behest of his family.

SAO said:
Is it because he was a transgender or because of who he was as a person?
i dont really know. i've not seen him/her in a long time. from memory it was probably mutual aversion from the beginning, on my side with the added effect of him/her being a transexual and not knowing what to with that.

SAO said:
They, and other "minority groups" have been oppressed for a long time. In their struggle to become seen as equals some of them take it too far, probably the psychopaths among the minority groups. So you have situations where girls sue guys for rape and the guys' life is destroyed regardless of whether it was true or not. Or situations of people accusing someone of racism or sexism, also regardless of the truth, and also destroying lives. The psychopathic media is always too happy to accomodate and exploit any "sensitive" social issues and milk them as much as possible, regardless of who is hurt or why.
SAO said:
But is it homosexuality, or is it sex with men for other reasons than natural attraction? Are you saying there is a link between homosexuality to psychopathy? Or that out of a total percentage of homosexuals in population, there is a higher percentage of them among those in power?

... and ...

What makes you think that homosexuals are being promoted to power disproportionately? Is there any data to this assertion or did you make it up?

... and ...
What do you mean by "protected" status? Who says they are in protected status?
re the first paragraph, it was not a statement, it was/is a question.
re the second and third paragraphs: true, i have no data to support that, i ask based on my perception of how things are. what i find interesting is that in about 15-20 years we've gone from a state of affairs where homosexuality was heavily penalized by law to a state of affairs where homosexuality / bisexuality seem to be promoted as behavior role models. i think this has to with more/other intentions than just the PTB promoting 'be nice to each other'. i think that Laura's post at 23:08 is a hint of what i mean: what if 'before' they needed more ppl to control, now they want the opposite ? just a thought.

SAO said:
Why are you pretending to sincerely care about data for this question, if you have already made your conclusion above without data? Why would you create a link between psychopathy and homosexuality, political power and homosexuality, and only AFTER having conclusively established this link as you just have with absolutely no evidence, suddenly as an after-thought ask something like "Oh yeah, does anyone have any evidence for what I just concluded above without evidence?".
i did not 'pretend' anything. i asked some questions after having presented my own assumptions about related things, which you and others are showing me are pretty off-base.

SAO said:
Again, you state that you think this IS in fact the case, and then you ask, "Is it, in fact, the case?". Why?
is that really a contradiction ?

(to be continued)
 
mada85 said:
Name, your post shows the usual 'I'm a superior heterosexual' attitude exhibited by many unconscious hetero types. The tone of your post is offensive and arrogant. You show absolutely no empathy for a persecuted minority – it seems that you don't really want to understand anything, you're just looking for 'scientific' ammunition for your abusive ideas.
i neither see myself as 'superior' to homosexuals nor am i seeking for 'scientific ammo' for my abusive ideas. if anything i'm coming here with wrong ideas and dumb questions, and the response, so far, has been very informative to me about myself.

mada85 said:
Well, name, I am 'one of them' and the attitude demonstrated in this phrase alone is disgusting. And not being one of 'them' according to you, is just for starters. What comes next? Burning at the stake? Doth name protest too much? Or are you truly terrified of 'the love that dare not speak its name'?
i am not one of them. how does that statement of fact testify of a disgusting attitude ? the rest are your assumptions.

mada85 said:
These are not facts, just bigoted assumptions. And your idea that boys are either aggressively promiscuous or 'relatively under control' is truly and astoundingly offensive. It shows absolutely no knowledge of gay men, just your deep-seated fears.
it is what i've seen. and it may still be assumptions. as for the rest along with much of what is coming from the other posters is a rough ride to say the least.

mada85 said:
What do you base this rubbish on? 'Plain folks' are no strangers to gay and lesbian people. Where do you think homosexuals and lesbians come from? The same place heterosexuals come from! In my experience, 'plain folks' can be far more compassionate and accepting than so-called intellectuals.
see my answer to SAO.

mada85 said:
This is definitely questionable. When I was at school in the early 1970s, at an all-boys school, I did not come out, let alone tell any other students I was gay, for fear of physical violence. However, a boy I knew, who was in the same year as me, was completely out and everyone knew he was gay, yet he never suffered any physical attack or abuse, ever.
see my answer to SAO.

mada85 said:
Well, there is something missing for just about everyone on this planet – it's called consciousness, conscience, or empathy, and all three seem to be missing from your post.
i dont think that is so. but as henry says, time will tell.

mada85 said:
So that's why, when I read Lobaczewski, Hare, Stout and Salter, and so on, I can see myself mirrored in their pages. It's nothing to do with being ponerized from birth in a world of lies, just my 'innate homosexuality'. Thank you for explaining it to me.
it was a question, not a statement.

mada85 said:
Finally, here's a questionnaire for heterosexuals. You might like to consider these questions in the light of your arrogant and insulting post, which shows a bigoted lack of empathy and awareness.
your epithets are insulting to say the least.

Heterosexuality Questionnaire
(Attributed to Martin Rochlin, PhD, January 1977)

1. What do you think has caused you to be heterosexual?
i guess i was born that way. dont know.

2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?
at about age 4, when i first played doctor with a girl of about my age.

3. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of people of the same sex?
no. i'd say it has more to with my preference for women.

4. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?
i have, and i know.

5. Isn't it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
no. it is rather so that i decided in youth to try out homosexuality but that i found it less than thrilling.

6. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
thanks for the offer, bot no thanks.

7. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?
heterosexuality is 'normal' because, being the behavior of the majority, it is normative. the fact that most mental patients are heteros may either be correlation or it may have nothing to with it. i dont know.

8. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?
actually to nobody, i've never found need to do so. people who know about my seual orientation feel comftable around me, at least that is my impression.

9. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex? Why are they so promiscuous?
everybody, homos and heteros, seem to live a pretty 'wee-wee centric' life :-) and as i see it, homos are more promiscuous.

10. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?
perhaps heteros just happen to like the opposite sex ?

11. If you were to have children, would you want them to be heterosexual knowing the problems they'd face?
i'd not 'like' them to be either way, but i'd like them to be comftable about their decision and to know the consequences of their actions, not only as regards to sexuality.

12. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?
i've never either feeled compelled to not actually 'seduced' anybody towards my orientation.

13. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
no, not really.

14. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?
i neither insist on being obvious, nor do i make a public spectacle of my sexuality. i DO keep quiet about it like most people.

15. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusively heterosexual lifestyle, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your homosexual potential?
i do not limit myself, and i have explored other avenues in the past. i guess that my homosexual potential is scant, at least until now i've seen it so.

16. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role playing?
i dont 'play roles'.

17. Even with all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiralling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
it may have to with personal and societal factors beyond sexuality proper ?

18. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you, considering the menace of overpopulation?
see lauras post of 23:08

19. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that could help you change if you really wanted to. Have you considered trying psychotherapy or even aversion therapy?
i've known lots of happy heteros. i've also known lots of unhappy heteros. i've done (not tried) therapy. i dont know about aversion therapy.

21. Could you really trust a heterosexual therapist/counsellor to be objective and unbiased? Don't you fear he/she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his/her own preferences?
no. and i've trusted my therapists and seen my trust well-placed.

22. How can you enjoy a full, satisfying sexual experience or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex when the differences are so vast? How can a man understand what pleases a woman, or vice-versa?
isn't that quesiton a bit naive ?

so, mada85: would you take same test here in the thread, after having replaced 'heterosexual' for 'homosexual' ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom