The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[PhoenixToEmber]

Being externally considerate is something we advocate, but it takes 2nd place to the truth of any given situation. In case everyone has forgotten, there is really one a couple of points that have been made here, that I believe most people accepted, and yet despite that, some people have managed to get their knickers in a twist and become offended and offensive. The couple of points are:

1) Heterosexual people have fairly strong inbuilt aversion to the sight or image of homosexual sex, especially male. That's just 'what is'. Most heterosexuals are aware of that and keep it under wraps. What is asked, in return, is that homosexuals keep their tendency to 'shove it in people's faces' under wraps. Again, everyone seems to agree this is a good idea.

2) That homosexuality has been promoted in an unhealthy way that today seeks to 'shove it in people's faces' (because of past oppression etc.) and force heterosexuals to accept crass public manifestations of homosexuality as 'normal'. Those that have been socially-shamed or otherwise manipulated to accept this excluded, most people do not accept such displays as normal, and it seems reasonable to suggest that that kind of provocation may, in the not to distant future, provoke a 'moralistic backlash' that is not good for anyone, particularly homosexuals.

A third minor discussion about whether or not common or garden variety homosexuality is 'normal' didn't really get anywhere, mainly I think because there is no universal standard that can be applied to ALL human beings and to which all adhere. The closest we can get to an idea of 'normal' is what the majority of people adhere to. In terms of sexuality, that is heterosexuality, and therefore in this sense, homosexuality is not 'normal'.

Now there are plenty of things that are 'minority interests' that have nothing to do with sexuality, but they are, for the most part, in no way offensive to the majority. The problem with homosexuality is that, in it's crass 'in your face' form, it IS offensive to the majority. So we come back to the idea of keeping such things 'under wraps'. It's really not rocket science, although it does seem to be very difficult for many homosexuals to REALLY understand and accept the need to take that approach, probably because many if not most members of the homosexual community have, in recent decades, been encouraged to do exactly the opposite, i.e. 'shove it people's faces'.

A minority 'interest' or activity could, for example, be an interest in dressing up as a werewolf (or something of that nature) and running around at night. Most people with such an interest would realize that they should not do that publicly, or if they didn't, they would quickly come to that understanding as a result of public feedback (which could be painful). There are loads of other examples of minority interests that we could think of (and that exist today) that would fall somewhere along the spectrum of more or less offensive to the majority. The more offensive, the more adherents should keep it under wraps. And has already been said a few times in this thread, it would be unwise for homosexuals, especially members of this forum, to believe that simply because there is a lot of support for 'gay pride' these days, that they are free to be as loud and proud and crass as they like.

As has also been said, let's all stop identifying so much with our goddamn sexuality. Aren't we meant to be working towards getting a handle on that very programmed aspect of our natures? Why would anyone with that understanding argue for their limitations in that way?

So anyway, what of the two points above does anyone disagree with, particularly the gay members of our forum?

I actually don't disagree with any of it, really. I think we do have to be more strategic in how we present ourselves - not because it means going back into the closet, but because things could always change quickly and perhaps one day the environment won't be as safe as it is if that aversion is so deeply ingrained in people. I suppose it's just hard to get past the fact that it "feels" like we're being told to just "get back in the closet" (even though, intellectually, I understand that's not exactly what's being said). And after having gone through so much pain and turmoil to break out of that closet on a personal level, in my personal life to the extent I was comfortable with, it makes it easier to emotionally react, yes. I said above and never denied it - I am identifying. I think I've improved since the first time this issue came to a head about me specifically in The Swamp a few years ago. I had to really reel myself in.

I just wanted to share my thoughts, is all. I was trying really hard to be honest and to do that respectfully, and I did tell Cyre that he was being a bit defensive - yet I understood why he was that way because I know him better than all of you, perhaps, and I know myself and how I am with this topic. I'm trying to bridge a gap in communication, I guess. I appreciate being heard.

 

[Ant22]

Thank you for your post PhoenixToEmber. There are a couple of sections I'd like to respond to:

Cyre does make a valid point, though: How do you talk about a subject like this and not have to eventually get into details? And how much detail is too much detail when analyzing something like sexuality from a “scientific” point of view? And if you don’t like seeing it, or hearing about it, then where do gay members truly stand on a forum like this?

I think there's been quite a bit of miscommunication. The topic of this conversation wasn't gay sexuality in general: it started off as a conversation about possible reasons why homosexuality exists.

In my previous posts I intended to convey that the original reason why people have sex in the first place was to ensure survival of the species. Why else would gay people ejaculate at climax if nature's design wasn't the same as in heterosexual people? Sex drive is a heterosexual drive that homosexual people aren't free from just becuase they choose partners of the same sex. Due to their preferences they meet that need in a homosexual manner but it doesn't change the fact that sex drive exists to ensure the species continues to exist.

Yes, sexual intimacy is an important and integral part of monogamous relationships, both homo and heterosexual. No one here suggested otherwise. It goes without saying that in loving relationships it is both physical and emotional experience. But this is not why nature equipped us in sex drive in the first place, neither does it mean that sex should only be used to procreate.

Yet somehow pointing out biological facts led to accusations of homophobia.

Meaning just because most people might have such an aversion built-in, that does not mean they should necessarily follow or accept that aversion (even if there may be a logical reason for its existence) or try to justify it to themselves. It does appear some of you really just want to stop feeling bad about finding us disgusting, and you resent the current culture that promotes the idea that you shouldn’t feel that way, so you’re looking for explanations as to why you do, because you yourself don’t think you’re a homophobe even though you are repelled by us. But I would think combating that aversion in oneself is what’s actually more aligned with the Work for the simple fact that such an aversion, biological and natural as it may be, is still a mechanical thing in people and therefore also a program. If you can’t stop yourself from reacting with disgust at something gay (or sexual in general) that you see in the world, that’s mechanical, because you’re letting it affect you so much instead of being striving to be impartial. It doesn’t mean you have to like it, just that you don’t let it get to you.

Note that certain heterosexual experiences are also off limits for many people. I certainly don't want to know much, if anything, about my Mother's or grandparents' sex life and it doesn't mean I reject them as people. They don't share details of their sex life with me and yet we do have meaningful and mutually enriching relationships. Maybe that aversion is dislike of sexual experiences we cannot relate to? I don't know but I do find that curious.

If there is slight aversion response to homosexual acts, as mentioned in this post, then note that this only refers to being exposed to expression of affection, not gay people in general.

I can only speak for myself but I certainly wouldn't say I feel disgust towards gay people. Disgust is too strong a word. I simply don't want other people's sexuality rubbed in my face and I find that vulgar and uncomfortable. I don't think it matters to me if overly explicit expression of sexuality in public sphere is done by gay or straight people, but I do admit that I'm not very keen to know too much about the details of gay sex.

Is this the aversion mentioned here? Maybe. If it is, then the feeling is very slight and it hasn't stopped me from successfully sharing my home with gay people, hiring them with prior knowledge of their sexual orientation and being close friends with them. In all these interactions those people had multiple characteristics, their homosexuality was only a part of who they were and I feel this is what made those interactions successful.

And that, perhaps, when we try and find ways to point that out, we’re being told that we’re just being emotional even for merely stating that fact, and for stating the fact that, objectively (you guys love that word in how you describe what you think our sexual practices must be like) most of you have no idea what intimacy between two men is like.

Again, this conversation wasn't intended to be about intimacy between two men and given that we are machines designed according to the same template, I can imagine it generates similar emotions to those experienced by heterosexual couples. I never claimed otherwise. I merely pointed out that what the original reason for sex drive was - and that the reason was a heterosexual one.

I actually feel like my complete perspective as a gay man is somewhat unwelcome on the forum, even on a thread about homosexuality. I also don’t think that’s ALL in my head or identifying too much - I think the way some respond to this subject indicates that it's only accepted here to a point. And that’s fine, I guess.... It just means that maybe this isn’t really the place for a homosexual man struggling on an esoteric path to seek help or guidance about such things, in understanding sex and its role in the Work - my own set of lessons as a homosexual - without judgment or misunderstanding from people who just don’t… well... don’t really get it, but seem convinced they do... And I’ll tell you, I am struggling. I’m not there yet - I AM a machine - but I’m trying.

Do straight people only share problems related to their sexuality here? Obviously not. So why would you only share that aspect of your path? Is being gay your entire identity? Is this the only area you would like to Work on? I hope the answer is 'no' as otherwise I'd have to conclude that you are overly identified with your sexuality, to the point you've excluded everything else.

 

[Joe]

I suppose it's just hard to get past the fact that it "feels" like we're being told to just "get back in the closet" (even though, intellectually, I understand that's not exactly what's being said). And after having gone through so much pain and turmoil to break out of that closet on a personal level, in my personal life to the extent I was comfortable with, it makes it easier to emotionally react, yes. I said above and never denied it - I am identifying. I think I've improved since the first time this issue came to a head about me specifically in The Swamp a few years ago. I had to really reel myself in.

That's more or less what I was getting at in previous posts. It's obviously a 'hot topic' for gay people and not one that's easy to navigate, but at least being aware of the emotions around it gives you a chance to recognize when they are influencing your thinking, if only after the fact.

I just wanted to share my thoughts, is all. I was trying really hard to be honest and to do that respectfully, and I did tell Cyre that he was being a bit defensive - yet I understood why he was that way because I know him better than all of you, perhaps, and I know myself and how I am with this topic. I'm trying to bridge a gap in communication, I guess. I appreciate being heard.

Cyre seems to have more identification with his sexuality, so the challenge is a bit bigger for him perhaps, although I think you are in a position to help him with it. That kind of work on the self is no different to any other, because all such work revolves around getting a handle on emotional 'triggers' and we all need help with that.

 

[bianca etezete]

I only want to add one thing, just a notion, an anecdote to something Joe mentioned in the post above: That homosexuality is not normal. I once had a discussion with an ultra lefty and my friend with the gay son I mentioned in an earlier post here. And the Lefty (identifying as bisexual and polygam) was outraged that I mentioned that homosexuality is not natural for me. He asked me what could be more natural than that? And I said male and female. As for every homosexual has to admit, that he or she wouldn't exist in a pure homosexual world. End of discussion.

As someone who isn't the fittest (pun intended ) in the matter, I try a discussion reboot (as I lack other, better words; I do not want to create noise, and NOISE is the keyword here).

From what Laura linked in the first place Greg Cochran's "Gay Germ" Hypothesis - An Exercise in the Power of Germs"
<snip>
Homosexuality, epigenetics, and zebras – Why developmental noise, including in-utero epigenetic modifications, cannot explain male homosexuality (in short, natural selection has a strong incentive to prevent low-fitness phenotypes from manifesting, so such congenital defects are all rare)
<snip>
My question here is: what has this point to do with germs?

Or are germs meant to be the "developmental noise"?

Natural selection, well, what is meant by that is at least for me since I read John Sanfords "Genetic Entropy" a little questionable. Of course are ill animals which are weak because of infestation of some kind will be first to fall, so to say, but that doesnt have anything to do with the gay germ hypothesis.

 

[Joe]

Do straight people only share problems related to their sexuality here? Obviously not. So why would you only share that aspect of your path? Is being gay your entire identity? Is this the only area you would like to Work on? I hope the answer is 'no' as otherwise I'd have to conclude that you are overly identified with your sexuality, to the point you've excluded everything else.

I'll be cheeky enough to throw out an answer here, even though I wasn't asked: I think, on average, sexuality and sexual identity looms larger in the lives of gay people than heteros. Again, there seems to have been a deliberate intel program launched to help make it so.

 

[Mark]

I actually don't disagree with any of it, really. I think we do have to be more strategic in how we present ourselves - not because it means going back into the closet, but because things could always change quickly and perhaps one day the environment won't be as safe as it is if that aversion is so deeply ingrained in people. I suppose it's just hard to get past the fact that it "feels" like we're being told to just "get back in the closet"

Thinking of it as being "in the closet" is mistake in my perspective, seems like wrong thinking. A better way to think of it is this: Keep your private life private.

 

[Joe]

Thinking of it as being "in the closet" is mistake in my perspective, seems like wrong thinking. A better way to think of it is this: Keep your private life private.

The other problem is that there is a lot of social credit offered to homosexuals that are 'loud and proud' these days, and that's a draw. I'd really like to think that most gay members of this forum would have enough knowledge, awareness and control to resist that kind of thing, for the most part, and at least not defend it or advocate for it. The same goes for non-gay members, there are lots of attractions and distractions available to all of that we have to navigate. So there is nothing being asked here of gay members that does not, in general, apply to all.

As a related aside, the general idea of the Cs teaching etc. is that we are all meant to be in the process of pursuing the goal of making ourselves into some kind of 'conduits' for a certain type of 'energy' that will play an important role in the not-too-distant future. That process seems to, in general, involve removing to the greatest extent possible, our immersion in materialism and self-centeredness. Just thought I'd mention that as a philosophical context into which to place all of this.

 

[bianca etezete]

I'll be cheeky enough to throw out an answer here, even though I wasn't asked: I think, on average, sexuality and sexual identity looms larger in the lives of gay people than heteros. Again, there seems to have been a deliberate intel program launched to help make it so.

Yes, I second that.

 

[Breo]

PeE,
you know, I can easily respect the way you present yourself in your post, sharing your impressions and worries. And I am well aware of the personal struggle involved. But I would like to add that here on this specific forum its not about feeling comfortable. Thats a trap if your are looking for that. Of course a thread like the gay germ hypothesis has the potential to be a giant trigger for gay forum members - as for Jewish forum members other threads. But again if allowing to be personally triggered and falling into reactions of hurt and defense, the essence of the discussion is already lost. Exactly here, there are people who really care without entitlement or superiority.

That the discussion evolved like it did - for me - showed a very real picture of how “proud” minorities tend to present themselves in this “anything goes” world. Jordan Peterson has lectured about it extensively. Its not surprising to me that it is reflected in this thread too.
Personally I do know quite some really decent LG folks since long but it bothers me that I even have to mention it. And I completely avoid any contact with the LGBT...XYZ community, mainly because of their grotesque "politically correct" sexualisation of nearly every topic. Nearly everything is seen through sex. That really repulses me.

 

[Z...]

I'll be cheeky enough to throw out an answer here, even though I wasn't asked: I think, on average, sexuality and sexual identity looms larger in the lives of gay people than heteros. Again, there seems to have been a deliberate intel program launched to help make it so.

I would say this is a generalisation that doesn’t correspond with my experience of life so far . Perhaps because we were brought up in essentially very different cultures - the one I grew up in is the exact opposite.
It’s so extreme that in some instances heterosexual people who are introvert, shy or not very loud about their machismo and sexual conquests are dismissed as sissies or gays.
I would say gay people are often confused, riddled with guilt and desire to be accepted because of their sexuality - so I can understand why would it loom larger in their life then average heterosexual who doesn’t have any of these problems. There are also gay people who refuse to be defined by their sexuality, be pigeon holed and live in a “gay ghetto” but I suspect these are minority within gay population.

 

[Beau]

Yet that same logic can be applied to the idea of a natural, biological aversion and repulsion to homosexuality, couldn’t it? Meaning just because most people might have such an aversion built-in, that does not mean they should necessarily follow or accept that aversion (even if there may be a logical reason for its existence) or try to justify it to themselves.

I'm not sure you understand the sub-conscious level that aversion occurs within heterosexuals, particularly males, when viewing two men in a sexual situation. Your comment above reads like you think people can just use their will power to stop feeling that way. I think that's rather naive:

Straight men's physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots

In heterosexual men, pictures of rotting flesh, maggots and spoiled food induce the same physiological stress response as pictures of two men kissing each

www.psypost.org

In heterosexual men, pictures of rotting flesh, maggots and spoiled food induce the same physiological stress response as pictures of two men kissing each other. That is the surprising finding that was recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Psychology & Sexuality.

“We originally were interested in understanding the health effects of same-sex vs. mixed-sex public displays of affection for the couples in the relationship,” explained the study’s corresponding author, Karen L. Blair of St. Francis Xavier University.

“However, one of the factors likely to influence how individuals experience PDAs is the reaction that other people have to witnessing PDAs. Consequently, we decided to begin the research by examining whether or not heterosexuals have negative responses to witnessing same-sex PDAs; in particular, we began by examining heterosexual male responses to male same-sex public displays of affection.”

“Participants watched a series of slideshows: male couples kissing, male couples holding hands, mixed-sex couples kissing, mixed-sex couples holding hands, boring images (e.g., paper clips) and disgusting images (maggots),” Blair explained. “In between slide shows, we asked participants questions about their responses to the photos (not yet published) and we also collected saliva samples in order to assess salivary alpha-amylase in response to each slide show (the current paper).”

Measuring levels of salivary alpha-amylase, a digestive enzyme that is associated with stress and is especially responsive to disgust, allowed the researchers to examine the men’s physiological reaction to the photos. The study was based on results from 120 heterosexual men (aged 18 to 45).

“In comparing the salivary alpha-amylase responses of participants to the various slideshows, we found that participants had higher salivary alpha-amylase responses to the images of two men kissing and the disgusting images. In both cases, these responses were significantly different than the responses they had to the neutral stimuli.”

However, Blair warned it was difficult to interpret the finding at this stage.

“It is difficult to specifically state what this means. It could mean that participants found the images of male same-sex couples kissing to be equally disgusting as the disgusting images. It could mean that they had an anxiety response to the male couples kissing and a disgust response to the disgusting images, but that physiologically, we could not tell the difference between these two emotions.”

Previous research has found a strong link between sexual prejudice and the emotion of disgust. For instance, a 2008 study found that individuals who are more easily disgusted are also more likely to make unfavorable moral judgments about gay people.

But it was clear that the physiological reactions in the present study could not be explained by the participants’ sexual prejudices alone.

“What is most important to note is that the responses did not differ as a function of self-reported levels of prejudice or self-reported levels of aggression towards gay men,” Blair explained. “In other words, it was not our highly prejudiced individuals who were experiencing a heightened physiological response to the images of same-sex couples kissing, it was everyone in the sample, even those with very low levels of prejudice.”

The finding provides more evidence that the so-called “gay panic” defense — the assertion that a person’s sexual orientation can “trigger” a crime against them — is bunk. The defense was used by the two men who beat, tortured and murdered gay student Matthew Shepard in 1998.

“Whatever is happening physiologically when someone witnesses same-sex PDA, it is not something so strong, or so uncontrollable as to explain the patterns of violent LGBTQ-hate crimes that have been repeatedly reported in the media,” Blair told PsyPost. “Clearly, the large majority of individuals who witness same-sex PDAs do notrespond with violence, indicating that whatever small physiological response we are noticing here is not evidence for an uncontrollable or overwhelming fit of panic, as suggested by the ‘gay panic’ defense.”

“Why do people low in prejudice still show an increased physiological response? We can’t say definitively, however, it could be that society has socialized the notion of same-sex sexuality and affection as being ‘disgusting’ or immoral so strongly, for so long, that merely witnessing it causes a slight physiological stress response. It would be interesting for future research to examine whether this physiological effect is more likely to be found in cultures that still evidence high levels of prejudice compared to those who have made more progress towards normalizing same-sex affection and sexuality.”

The study is the first of its kind, and the researchers hope that future research will strengthen their findings. There are also some questions that additional research could help answer.

“This is a very preliminary investigation of the physiology of sexual prejudice,” Blair said. “The work needs to be replicated with a larger sample and with more indicators of physiological reactivity as well as additional indicators to help decipher what the physiological responses mean. For example, it is difficult to determine whether an elevated salivary alpha-amylase level indicates stress, fear, or anger.”

“One thing that we will be looking at in our own data to help solve this mystery is emotion-coding of the facial expressions participants made while watching each of the slide shows. This may help us to understand what emotions were prominent, especially among those self-reporting higher levels of sexual prejudice. We also need to replicate with different participants (men and women, in different locations) looking at different targets (e.g., female same-sex couples, gender-diverse couples, interracial couples, etc.). Each iteration of the study is quite expensive though, due to the collection of physiological data, so it will take some time and additional funding before we can run each of the iterations that we would like to run.”

“This research was largely funded through a crowdfunding campaign on Experiment.com (http://www.drkarenblair.com/pdasponsors/), and later by the American Institute of Bisexuality. More information on how we fund some of our LGBTQ-related research can be found here: KLB Research is creating Research on LGBTQ Lives | Patreon.”

The study, “What do two men kissing and a bucket of maggots have in common? Heterosexual men’s indistinguishable salivary α-amylase responses to photos of two men kissing and disgusting images“, was also co-authored by Breanna Maureen and Rhea Ashley Hoskin.

To me that study indicates that the aversion that occurs exists for a reason, whether it's evolutionary or something else. I really don't think anyone can just stop themselves from feeling that way since it's not a logical, reasoned thought process but rather an instinctive response.

 

[Jones]

Anal sex is a bit more descriptive than butt sex, but is there really a problem with 'butt sex?' Y'all need to lighten up. I think the thread demonstrates huge biases and a lot of folks justifying and endorsing that bias because some gay people and much of gay culture are relatively disgusting in their behaviors and attitudes.

The clutching of pearls throughout at my relatively tame use of language to illustrate points regarding human sexuality was, at the very least, entertaining. It was an effective obstruction to the points I was making, however.

There's little understanding from a gay perspective because most of y'all are straight and prefer to maintain the 'objectivity' of your 'revulsion.' Which is demonstrably not objective as there are folks who don't find it such.

It's a little sad that y'all can see two dudes hold hands in public without getting grossed out. Or if two people kiss in public (regardless of their gender) some folks again get triggered. That says much more about the individual(s) in question than the couple, if you ask me. If you want to justify those feelings and give them some safe harbor in your psyche and rationalize that with a pseudoscientific theory (which no evidence to support it) be my guest.

I think you're still missing the point. But here's another approach to the matter.

C's have said that we'll have a rerun of Nazi Germany.

I'm pretty sure it's almost impossible for most homosexuals to not have an 'oppression' and 'entitlement' chip on their shoulder and equally impossible for the vast majority of them to remove it. The CIA did a number on the gay community with their 'pride' program, and it has obviously worked very well.

Rounding up homosexuals is going to be pretty easy next time around.

Second, recognize that most people will not have any self-control, and plan accordingly. In other words, try not to intentionally or unintentionally push other peoples' disgust buttons.

What AI has said here is also important because there are people who love you and who might come to harm by trying to defend you or simply through their association with you if the SHTF. Where are justifications and identifications going to stand then? In other words, external consideration also has to take in to account the broader context of the part of the historical cycle we seem to find ourselves in. As Luc has said it comes with responsibility that the LGBT community seems to be largely short sighted about and I don't think that's an accident.

If you're going to raise the subject of evil, how about including the 'Evil Magician' and consider the probability that the LGBT movement has been co-opted and is just a pawn in a bigger ponerogenic game and your defences, justifications and identifications are playing into their hands.

I'd suggest that as Lobaczewski did, that homosexuals at least get clear from the scene and anyone who knows them as homosexual for a while to decompress before assuming that there can be any clear thought on the subject since it seems that you can't see that this discussion could help without snapping to defence.

But I would think combating that aversion in oneself is what’s actually more aligned with the Work for the simple fact that such an aversion, biological and natural as it may be, is still a mechanical thing in people and therefore also a program. If you can’t stop yourself from reacting with disgust at something gay (or sexual in general) that you see in the world, that’s mechanical, because you’re letting it affect you so much instead of being striving to be impartial. It doesn’t mean you have to like it, just that you don’t let it get to you.

I can attest to the fact that there are members here who have helped me, despite any aversion they may have felt, when the subject involved homosexual sex. I was very aware at the time that the subject could be offensive to some. I don't know, perhaps it's just that I've lived in a time before all of this legislation and social pressure forced the sense of aversion underground and am aware from personal experience that it exists. This CIA programming hasn't strengthened LGBT individuals, it seems to have weakened them. So when or if the snap back comes in our time I don't know how you are all going to stand up to the pressure and stress. Defending POV and identification isn't going to work with someone who'd happily cave your head in.

Some time after our separation, my first long term partner along with a group of other LGBT people took a local public dignitary to court for vilification, 10-15 years ago. He had a bumper sticker on one of his vehicles that said 'The only right that gays have is the right to die'. He was found guilty and and was directed to pay compensation. I don't think that man's hatred has gone away because of that experience - I think his hatred would have intensified. It doesn't matter why he has that hatred - pointing the finger and calling him homophobic, closet homosexual or prudish isn't going to change a damn thing. There are people like him in the broader community just waiting for the day.

So just stop fighting and defending and get a grip.

 

[Carl]

I'm not sure you understand the sub-conscious level that aversion occurs within heterosexuals, particularly males, when viewing two men in a sexual situation. Your comment above reads like you think people can just use their will power to stop feeling that way. I think that's rather naive:

To me that study indicates that the aversion that occurs exists for a reason, whether it's evolutionary or something else. I really don't think anyone can just stop themselves from feeling that way since it's not a logical, reasoned thought process but rather an instinctive response.

No but PTE has a point. Not talking about wider society here but specifically on this forum and in this thread.

People openly displaying their disgust towards homosexuals as people is not externally considerate. In the same way that homosexuals flaunting vivid details of their sex life is not externally considerate. Especially in a thread discussing the possible origins and implications of homosexuality, where gay people are of course coming to read and weigh in.

And also the "shutting down discussion because of prudishness" I kinda get as well. I mean Cyre's posts had a heavy tone of ego and defensiveness from the get-go, but the thing about the prostate 'pleasure centre' in the context of the discussion on whether sodomy is normal or designed in nature, got shot down because TMI or whatever, but I found it quite interesting. I mean who's really to say? Maybe designers thought of this. Maybe they knew some people would be born natural homosexuals and be tortured with testosterone-driven sexual desire with little hope of satisfying it, so they built a kind of 'back door' system. Who the hell knows?

Anyway to get my head around this I tried going back to Harrison's example of foreign foods.

Say you grew up in the west and your friend from somewhere has grown up eating a particularly disgusting food. He likes to stuff dead birds in a bag and let them ferment for 3 seasons before eating uncooked. You look at it and feel repulsed. The sight, the smell, it just triggers an unconscious response. You can't control that. You may even come up with some objective reasons why it might be dangerous, cause ill-health etc. Then we add some moralistic stuff on top of it and say its brutal, evil or whatever

Therefore the onus is on him, out of consideration, to not get that stuff out and eat it in front of you. But at the same time you can be considerate and say hey, I don't think youre a horrible person or anything. You're not 'objectively' some unnatural demon. It's just my automatic disgust program being triggered.

 

[Carl]

I would say this is a generalisation that doesn’t correspond with my experience of life so far . Perhaps because we were brought up in essentially very different cultures - the one I grew up in is the exact opposite.
It’s so extreme that in some instances heterosexual people who are introvert, shy or not very loud about their machismo and sexual conquests are dismissed as sissies or gays.
I would say gay people are often confused, riddled with guilt and desire to be accepted because of their sexuality - so I can understand why would it loom larger in their life then average heterosexual who doesn’t have any of these problems. There are also gay people who refuse to be defined by their sexuality, be pigeon holed and live in a “gay ghetto” but I suspect these are minority within gay population.

Yeah its a fine line to balance on, between dealing with personal traits (and society's view on them), and being fully identified in them. On the one hand being fully defined by one small aspect of your life is toxic. On the other hand, if that small aspect of you is intrinsic, unchangeable, and also happens to be under attack by others, then yea it's gonna take on a bigger role.

Like if you're black, you don't have to make everything about you being black this, black that etc., because you're a lot more than just a skin colour. But at the same time, you being black is gonna be a very big deal when the police come knocking.

 

[Laura]

Here's a bit from Pierre's article on the topic from 2014 which pretty much expresses our view here of the issues:

Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?

Editor's note: This article addresses several controversial topics (homosexuality, pedophilia, sexual predation, etc.) and its content, as well as some illustrations, may be shocking to some. If, despite this disclaimer, you decide to read...

www.sott.net

At first it aimed at stopping homophobia and discrimination, which can be considered a truly legitimate goal since, at the time, homosexuality was considered by the majority as abnormal; homosexuality is, of course, not abnormal but rather a normal part of the human sexual orientation distribution curve in the same way as a very short person or a very tall person is one of a normal range in a distribution curve of heights of humans. But homosexuality is not the average nor is it the majority. But in any event, starting with a justified approach (getting rid of discrimination) that corrected certain defects in the system, step by step, homosexuality was disclosed, became acceptable, and then several laws gave equal rights to homosexuals. Same-sex marriage, civil pact, and anti-discrimination measures were adopted in a growing number of countries. All fine and good as far as I can see.

It is fair to say that, within a couple of decades, homosexuality became an accepted and integral part of society. With legal and social equality attained in this way, one might have assumed that the gay rights movement, having no more raison d'être, would naturally fade into the background. But that's not what happened.

It seems that, for those infiltrators that took over the movement, equality was never their real goal but rather a pretext to bridle a majority of gay people to a very different cause. Like other dominating minorities (vegetarians, Jews, anti-smokers, Masons, gypsies, etc.) the very identity of such groups is defined by their difference relative to common people. The real objective is to exacerbate those differences, have them perceived as a mark of superiority and use them to manipulate the rest of the population. That is to say, the 'rasion d'être' of the leaders of the gay rights movement is to forever be the 'other' and the idea of 'fading away' therefore is anathema to them.

Thus, in the subsequent years, an ostensible kind of gay-ism was heavily promoted during events like the gay pride (notice it's not about 'equality' any more but about 'pride') to ensure that homosexuality secures and maintains a high profile in the eyes of common people and society in general.

A growing number of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) opinion leaders started to appear as leaders in many spheres of influence (singers, artists, politicians, journalists, sports, 'captains of industry', etc.)

And of course, the mainstream media worked overtime through music, movies, talk shows, ads, etc). to depict ostensible homosexuality in extremely favorable terms.

This enterprise has been so successful that, in a few decades, traditional values have been almost totally reversed. Today, at least in some circles, particularly the younger generation and/or the upscale urban milieu, being gay is a trendy thing, a proof of open-mindedness, a mark of progress, while being a heterosexual is increasingly considered as reactionary, anachronistic, conservative, passé and ultimately boring.

Notice a very important point however: the gay rights movement was initiated by a very small minority of gay people who claimed to speak in the name of the entire community. But it was a total usurpation. The vast majority of gay people live normal lives, they are fully integrated in society and their sexual orientation is a private matter. Most gay people have never been proselytes or activists, they are normal people after all, right?

In addition, most homosexuals are not interested in marriage and even less in adoption since homosexual unions, statistically speaking, tend to be short-lived. They just want discretion and freedom to lead their personal lives without fear of interference or excessive scrutiny, which is just the opposite of what is brought by LGBT activists: media coverage, hysterization, political claims and special status.

In the same way as Jews are manipulated by a minority of Zionist infiltrators who vastly overemphasize the threat of anti-Semitism and exploit a victim complex (the holocaust primarily), homosexuals are manipulated by a minority of pedophiles who represent themselves as part of the gay community and use the threat of homophobia and exploit their alleged status as victims (AIDS for example).

A good example of this infiltration process is Veteran gay rights advocate and former San Francisco Human Rights Commission staffer Larry Brinkin who was arrested and found guilty of child pornography.

This brings us to the main point: Homosexual marriage was not an end but rather a means. Indeed, once homosexual marriage was legalized, the next legal step, adoption, couldn't be refused. It has already been promulgated in 14 countries.

The adoption process is based not so much on morality but on money, homosexuals having, on average, higher incomes than heterosexuals because of the general policy of 'positive discrimination' in all areas of society, including the business world. So, it could be said that, nowadays, homosexuals have more adoption 'rights' than heterosexual couples.

The homosexual community has been used as a Trojan horse, infiltrated by a clique of pedophiles who lobbied for the promulgation of the adoption law under the guise of equality of rights in order to further their plan to own children. As a result, today, it is perfectly legal for two pedophiles to 'marry' and then buy children. It is not only technically possible but also confirmed by numerous real life cases of pedophile couples buying and abusing the adopted children:
[...]

The gay rights movement described above was only one of the tools used to change the very foundations of our societies. Gender theory is another one. This theory was created in the 1920's by John Money, a New Zealand sex therapist, who repeatedly and publicly advocated for homosexuality and pedophilia. (Notice how the one advocacy appears to be linked to the second. This is a clue that the individual is not a true, 'normal homosexual.')

Money is famous for having 'treated' two twins, forcing one of them to change sex, shooting pictures of the twins simulating sex, encouraging them to engage in 'sex play' with each other, and molesting both of them. Both twins ended up committing suicide.

Today, Gender theory's most ardent advocate is a feminist lesbian called Judith Butler. Butler is also Jewish.

To get an idea of how much Butler's ideology is supported by the 'elite' of this world, you can check her substantial list of awards and honors and the number of prestigious Universities that have honored or hosted her (Princeton, Columbia and Harvard to name just a few).

Gender theory is based on the (wrong) postulate that, at a very early age, children already have a very active sexuality that should be encouraged and also that sexual orientations and gender are purely a matter of choice and social conditioning.

You might be surprised to learn that Gender theory is already taught and applied in numerous schools throughout the world. You might also wonder why there is so little mention of the topic in the mainstream (or other) media.

In Germanic Switzerland, as early as kindergarten, children are taught about masturbation and encouraged to practice it. School kids are given a 'sexbox' that includes stuffed toys in the shapes of penises and vaginas and wooden dildos and are encouraged to play with them.

[...]
Six year-old schoolkids are also taught about heterosexuality and homosexuality and, of course, they are told that both orientations are just that, and effectively exactly the same (remember it's all about freedom, sexual orientation being only a matter of choice, never mind that the gay rights folks have been saying for years that it is a normal genetic variation!)

[...]

Indeed, under the guise of sexual freedom, Gender theory spreads the sick and wrong belief that young children should effectively have an adult sexuality and that their sexual orientation is purely a matter of personal choice. Bring those two points together and the result is that a young children having sex with a male adult is a perfectly normal thing.

But it is not, as many studies show. For example, pedophiles' brains show abnormal reaction to kids' faces:

In the animal kingdom, there are a number of mechanisms designed to prevent adults from attempting sex with the young. For example, "pheromones emitted by child mice inhibit sexual behavior of adult male mice," said lead study author Jorge Ponseti, a sex researcher at Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel in Germany. "If scientists inhibited these pheromones in the child mice, adult male mice started to mate with these babies." ...

It remains uncertain why pedophilia happens in humans. Pedophiles may have experienced problems in brain development at a young age. For instance, "there is an increased number of head injuries before 12 years of age in pedophiles," Ponseti said. (May 21, the Journal Biology Letters)

Obviously, unlike homosexuals who are born that way for various reasons, and are a small, but normal part of the human sexuality distribution curve, pedophiles are abnormal - abnormal even in the animal kingdom.

Coming back to the original topic, I still am curious as to whether there is anything to the idea that some homosexuality could be due to some kind of pathogen and could the aversion of the majority of humans to homosexuality be in any way related to that fact?

Or, is the aversion simply hard-wired in there to limit homosexual populations and thus ensure survival of the species?

And that brings me around to something else that was in Pierre's article cited above:

A number of psychokinesis experiments have provided a body of evidence showing that human beings do have an influence on macro events. However, this influence doesn't necessarily match the intent of the subjects, many other factors are involved including the subject's unconscious, fears, emotional state, beliefs, etc.

I won't extensively develop this point here because, as mentioned previously, my book Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic connection, particularly the fourth and last part (the Human-Cosmic connection) is fully dedicated to this topic: how individuals, influence the outside world, even on a macro scale.

This phenomenon - the human ability to influence macro-cosmic events - might be an important modulator of our environment and that might be the reason why our elites systematically ridicule what is condescendingly called 'parapsychology'.

In any case, one of the most extensive and scientifically sound PK experiments was conducted by Dr. Robert Jahn, Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton, and Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist at the University of Chicago.

This research is one of the very few 'parapsychology' studies that has been recognized by a prominent scientific organization, the U.S. National Research Council, which concluded that the experiment was rigorous and that its results could not be explained by chance.

Over a 12-year period, Jahn and Dunne conducted nearly 2.5 million trials in which participants sitting in front of a carefully configured Random Event Generator (REG) would first attempt to 'will' the machine to produce more 1s than 0s, then the reverse, then try not to influence the machine in any way.

Jahn and Dunne found a cumulated deviation that was statistically highly significant because the results were compiled from millions of trials, with dozens of correlating experiments. The odds of these results being produced by chance being one in a trillion.

Not only did Jahn and Dunne study how individuals influence 'random' events, but they also studied the influence exerted by a pair of subjects, and that is where things become really interesting.

The PEAR lab ran a series of studies using pairs of people, in which each pair was to act in concert when attempting to influence the machines. Of 256,500 trials, produced by fifteen pairs in forty-two experimental series, many pairs also produced a 'signature' result, which didn't necessarily resemble the effect of either individual alone.

Couples of the opposite sex, all of whom knew each other, had a powerful complementary effect, producing more than three and a half times the effect of individuals. However, 'bonded' pairs, those [heterosexual] couples in a relationship, had the most profound effect, which was nearly six times as strong as that of single operators.

In contrast, couples of the same sex tended to have a negative effect. These types of couples had a worse outcome than they achieved individually; with eight pairs of operators the results were the very opposite of what was intended.
[...]

While bonded heterosexual couples, the kind of pairs that have the strongest influence on the reality around us, have been consistently inhibited to the point almost of destruction of those capacities, the normalization of homosexuality - including massive faux homosexuality - has given rise to a growing number of homosexual couples whose influence, as shown by Jahn and Dunnes, is not just weaker than the one exerted by individuals alone, but can produce the opposite effects of those intended.

Is it a coincidence to see that the seemingly unrelated devolutions described above (rise of homosexuality, androgynization, destruction of love and marriage) all contribute to the weakening of the 'human-cosmic connection'? If someone wanted to minimize the cosmic influence exerted by our civilization, a good way to go about it would be to do all the things listed above.

Keep in mind that, of course, marriage, family, heterosexuality, manliness and womanliness do not guarantee perfect happiness at all. There are many dysfunctional heterosexual couples with children. However, if we have reached a point on the devolutionary curve where we have to choose between two evils, it would make sense to choose the lesser one. From this perspective, the traditional family and life were better than the 'modern' world the 'elite' have foisted upon us.

So, perhaps there is a deep and significant reason for aversion to homosexuality and maybe it has nothing to do with pathogens?