The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[mkrnhr]

Coincidently, I've been thinking today about Jahn and Dunne's results. Watched recently an interview on YouTube with Brenda Dunne (plus, she's funny) where she also points out, if I recall correctly, that men usually have small but consitent effects on the RNGs, while women have larger but inconsistent effects. Couples obtained even larger and more consistent effects. Fascinating and mysterious.

 

[Adaryn]

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.
[…]
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.

Not sure what you're talking about here. I've read most of the posts in this thread, and I haven't seen anyone here displaying any kind of disgust towards homosexuals as people, or saying that they're horrible people and 'objectively' demoniac. Implying that when someone says he feels "slight revulsion at the sight of 2 men kissing, or at the thought of 2 men having sex" or that "anal sex is unnatural", it really means that he feels disgust and hatred towards gays as people is really a stretch (that word again). Heck, to echo Ant22's comments above, I absolutely recoil at the thought that, for me to be here, my parents and grandparents MUST have had sex at some point. The horror! Does it mean I think my parents and grandparents were disgusting people? Of course not.

 

[luc]

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.

PtE, me too, I respect your efforts to come to terms with all of this. A few comments:

I think we all, whether straight or gay, need to understand how thouroughly we have been indoctrinated with the "gay pride" program. And in that spirit, I can't see anything wrong with "hitting it hard". Yes, we might have gone overboard at bit at times (myself included), but that's just how it goes when you really try to get to the bottom of something. You hit it from all angles, and you hit it hard. This is pretty much the only place where this is possible. You do realize that if I or others were to discuss such things anywhere else, let's say with a colleague at work, in many places we could be sued, fired and even jailed, right? That the "social stigma" pretty much runs the other way around nowadays? So yes, I would expect gay members to cut us some slack here in trying to counter gay pride propaganda and indoctrination.

From your quote above, PtE, I notice that one crucial thing is missing: compassion for us, the "normal" majority society. It's all about you and your "gay identity". You said you might want to be more "strategic" so that you don't face persecution. But the point is: you maybe want to be more considerate not out of self-interest, but out of compassion for others. Don't you have any compassion for a dad whose children are forced to watch gay perversion on gay prides? For a kid being disturbed when having to see two men kiss in public? For heteros having to walk on eggshells around gays for fear of repercussions? If you want compassion, give compassion. Don't make it all about you, your suffering and all those victim olympics of identity politics. We all suffer in our own ways.

Second, I agree with @mkrnhr that the "in the closet" concept might be misleading, and in fact be part of the whole gay pride indoctrination. Where do such concept like "in the closet" or "coming out" come from? What do they even mean? Are you only happy if you can shout your preferred sex style from the rooftops? How about: you are aware that some people react negatively to homosexuality, and people in general seem to have some kind of aversion to it that they usually keep in check. So you choose wisely with whom you talk about it. Some people you simply leave in the dark as to your sexual orientation. Some people, you give them time, and eventually gently introduce them to you being in a relationship with a man, if necessary and appropriate. Some people you get to know well and get friends with, you can talk about more intimate things. What's so bad about that? We all wear masks in public. The blurring of private and public life in fact seems part of all this postmodern nonsense that postulates a right to brazenly "be yourself" everywhere. Not so.

I think part of the "gay pride" indoctrination is a total identification with sexual orientation. You go from "I prefer dudes", to "I'm gay", then to "that's my most important feature" and finally to "I'm oppressed and denied my rights if I cannot express my gay identity everywhere, all the time". I sure hope you are much more than "a gay". In fact, isn't that idea of "gay identity" strengthening homophobia? Isn't that what a real bigot would say: I don't see you as a human being, but simply as a homo? Just some things we might think about. If we agree that "gay pride" is an indoctrination program to drive us all apart and corrupt society, we need to understand it and rid ourselves from it, regardless of our sexual orientation.

 

[Z...]

Like the majority of the forumites I have pretty strong aversion to sodomy of any sort but this is too funny coincidence not to mention it...

Yesterday evening, still very much under the impression of this discussion and ruminating on some points presented here - I decided for some light entertainment and I chose Kingsmen - half way thorough the movie - when Eggsy is about to save the world and Swedish princess - my jaw literally dropped

 

[Ant22]

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.

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.

I got the impression both Cyre and PhoenixToEmber expected people to stop feeling the instinctive emotion, rather than referring to stopping its external expression. The first one is pretty much as achievable as consciously stopping the feeling of disgust towards maggots or rotten food, an analogy from the articles quoted above. It happens automatically and cannot really be stopped.

I agree that external expression of that emotion is something that should be controlled out of external consideration, but given that this emotion is also present in individuals highly tolerant of homosexuality (100% of the sample experienced it) I think it is already under control in Western societies.

Knowing the feeling is there gives massive protection, enabling gay people to consciously act in a manner that aids positive perception of them, as well as helping increase the likelihood of a positive response of their environment to them.

Trying to force eradication of that emotion through shaming and aggressive accusations of homophobia is a risky game to play. Whatever you resist, persists. Emotional suppression has a nasty habit of exploding sooner or later in unpleasant ways. Which is why LGBT+ play with fire with their Gay Pride and what sometimes feels like almost glorification of homosexuality. Heck, most coffee shops in London only served hot drinks in rainbow cups throughout July, which apparently was a Gay Pride Month. I really don't want to think of other people's sexual preferences when I have my cuppa of hot chocolate, does that make me a homophobe?

Not sure what you're talking about here. I've read most of the posts in this thread, and I haven't seen anyone here displaying any kind of disgust towards homosexuals as people, or saying that they're horrible people and 'objectively' demoniac.

I agree that most posts here focus on being exposed to public expression of sexual behaviours, not gay people in general. But Yozilla showed disgust towards gay forum members with a graphic description and emojis, which showed no external consideration at all IMO. Even if this emotion is a common one I believe there are better ways of expressing it. I even wonder whether his post on page one triggered a defensive attitude among gay thread participants who then felt this conversation was hostile towards them in general:

Oh yes very interesting stuff this homo plague thingy, almost feels like pandemics. I've also noticed some weird sensations while some homosexuals are walkin' and talkin' behind or towards me - like some strong entity/beast is trying to convert me to there side - excuse me, but than my butts began to shiver (in lack of better term ) like those already infected are radiating some strong homo force of some sort. So maybe this ain't only physical issue (bugs&co) but psychic phenomenon also. What a strange urge that is!

 

[mkrnhr]

I don't understand why it is hard to understand. Let's say, I like to be without clothes. I Know that people in general do not like seeing a dude running naked. Why do I do? I don't do it in public and don't talk about it. I can do it at home, or those beaches for people without bathing suits, and when I'm in society, I wear clothes.

Another example: A lady goes to the toilet (such things happen) and coming back she says "I was in the bathroom": nothing registers. Now if on the other hand she says "I was doing this and that" (graphically or "clinically"), you will instinctively feel "repulsion" and maybe think twice before kissing her hand. Does it mean that suddenly women became evil or unlikable? No. It reminds me of a scene from a movie where a protagonist is asked why he wouldn't practice a certain pornographic oral "action" with his wife, and his answer was something like "are you crazy? that's the mouth she uses to kiss our kids before they go to sleep" (paraphrasing). The power of association is powerful.

 

[Carl]

Not sure what you're talking about here. I've read most of the posts in this thread, and I haven't seen anyone here displaying any kind of disgust towards homosexuals as people, or saying that they're horrible people and 'objectively' demoniac. Implying that when someone says he feels "slight revulsion at the sight of 2 men kissing, or at the thought of 2 men having sex" or that "anal sex is unnatural", it really means that he feels disgust and hatred towards gays as people is really a stretch (that word again). Heck, to echo Ant22's comments above, I absolutely recoil at the thought that, for me to be here, my parents and grandparents MUST have had sex at some point. The horror! Does it mean I think my parents and grandparents were disgusting people? Of course not.

Sorry yea I may have got a few wires crossed there and should have re-read the thread to confirm. Yozilla's post was the main thing that perhaps that got me "offended on behalf of the gays" in a SJW kinda way and then I applied that lense to later posts. I didn't mean to imply everyone was a raging homophobe, you in particular.

And personally I feel the revulsion as well, especially when 'gay love' is shoved in my face for the purpose of shock value and shaming. I see what they're doing and its a strategy with obvious motivations. Gay people (and straight) who are exposed to that culture also pick up the habit with the same obvious motivations, which is what I think Cyre was doing: "Look at me! This is what I do! Shame on you for finding it disgusting!".

I just wouldn't go as far as to make myself the arbiter on what is natural or acceptable within the universe, and keep it as a personal thing.

 

[Keit]

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).

I would like to share with you a personal example. I am a 41 years old woman, and I don't and will never have children. "So what!" I can hear you saying. And it's true that now the idea of being "childless" is pretty much accepted in the West. So much, as to cause demographic problems in certain countries.

And it is my personal choice, and there are various reasons: some more mundane, and some have to do with ideas and principles discussed on the forum. And while this issue is pretty much accepted in general, I still have to deal with a lot of ingrained beliefs. Especially since I live in Russia, a country where most people still hold traditional "family values". Heck, even Jordan Peterson talks about the importance of having children!

Now, it's not like I am being persecuted, but then I pretty much isolated myself from most of the potential criticism (starting with my mother). Also Russians are pretty tolerant and will hold their tongue unless you'll give them a good reason not to. There is respect for privacy, even if I did have to face numerous uncomfortable conversations (for both sides) regarding the fact that I don't have children.

Some of them may find me egotistic, some may pity me, some may see me as a weirdo and part of the "childfree" movement. Well, I don't mind all that, and actually in all the cases when was asked about my private and personal decision, I always made sure to present it in an externally considering way that would sound plausible and acceptable for them, and as a result will make my life easier. It's true that it does make me uncomfortable, because there are also benefits of having family and children. But that's how it is.

Well, you may not see this example as having an equal value to being a homosexual. Personally, I disagree. I consider myself "lucky" in this regard, because as I said, I am pretty much isolated from the rest of my genetic family, and there are no parents or relatives to constantly remind me that "the clock is ticking" and "what about the continuation of our family", etc. I can pretty much live as I like, and from time to time invent all kind of stories when needed. But I am in effect "hiding" from continuous scrutiny of the public, and stay in my own personal "childless closet".

Another similarity between us, that both being childless and being a homosexual have to do with deeply private issues. And we indeed should be thankful that nowadays our choices are not viewed in a harsher way. But then, there is this choice to keep it private, or to be "in the face" with it.

Don't think people would be so tolerant toward me if instead of being externally considering and understanding of their values, I would instead pontify my own view of the world, or would join the "childless" movement and spread information that Earth is overpopulated and those that choose to have children are selfish. As was mentioned here by the others, the problem isn't with homosexuality as a fact, but with the "in the face" behaviour.

There is a well known saying: "live and let live". And right now (and I am not talking about what was before) many homosexuals (or SJWs, take your pick) don't let other people live as they want to. At some point there will be a backlash of some sort.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

This is the primary reason why 'thou shalt not critically discuss Jews/gays/minorities' anywhere on the internet. Some among them quickly make it into a personal war, stifling thought and shutting down discussion.

I think that the whole issue of activist minorities is based on the phenomenon of tolerance. Which generates completely NEGATIVE social effects. Where there is tolerance there are tolerant and tolerated. It is an ideology of oligarchs. What is socially desirable is that there be respect, not tolerance. Many gays have introjected the supremacism of tolerance - own of the elites - and believe that they can demand to dictate social norms, and if the majority does not accept it , then they believe they have the right to insult them, to call them "Nazis", etc. Gay and radical feminist activist leaders benefit greatly from the elite's agenda to "empower them." What, "empower"? No one can empower, except, perhaps, "God". So minority activists want to be "empowered" by financial and corporate elites, who use them, to then throw them away in any time. Elitist minorities use other minorities against the social majority. Through perverse legislation, rights are created for few and against the majority, and they generate hell on Earth, implementing mass censorship. Perhaps it is another example of Law vs Love.

 

[Beau]

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.

I agree, people who feel that way should stop and think about just why they feel so judgmental. It's not really fair at all considering our sexuality is not something we can just choose. Most of us agree, our sexuality is not a big deal. So judging someone over their sexuality is actually quite dumb. What matters is our worthiness as a human being and how we treat others. I didn't get the impression anyone here looked at homosexuals as an unnatural demon or a horrible person, but maybe I missed something.

EDIT - Missed your latest reply Carl:

Sorry yea I may have got a few wires crossed there and should have re-read the thread to confirm. Yozilla's post was the main thing that perhaps that got me "offended on behalf of the gays" in a SJW kinda way and then I applied that lense to later posts. I didn't mean to imply everyone was a raging homophobe, you in particular.

I agree that Yozilla's post was rude and insensitive. Though he was called out on that by JGeropoulas.

 

[Joe]

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.

Indeed, but there's a not so subtle difference between someone who wants to deal with an issue in a serious, mature and adult way, and someone who simply wants to promote something for personal gain. That is, in fact, part of the 'aversion' that has nothing to do with sexuality per se. It's the self-serving/self-aggrandizing aspect of 'gay rights' that turns people off, in the same way that any and all opportunistic 'minority rights' movements is today provoking a strong negative reaction from many people.

So the really important 'instinctive reaction here, IMO, has nothing to do with sexual activity (that's pretty trivial and unimportant, similar to any 'ewww' response that we might have) and instead relates to a deep awareness that this kind of organized grand-standing where division is deliberately exacerbated under the guise of 'equality' or 'tolerance' is profoundly detrimental to the social fabric.

We all know instinctively (or at least some do, see Jonathan Haidt's book), what is affirming and what is destructive for a relationship, a family, and by extension a society. These are very basic things that are hardwired into us - co-operation, fairness, responsibility etc - from thousands of years of human experience (and they may even be 'soul deep'). We all instinctively understand that these values underpin our ability to survive and thrive in this world together. When the balance between them is undermined, we have an instinctive threat response.

As Haidt says "conservative" type people have a greater range of these "moral taste-buds", they effectively see more and more deeply about what is necessary for a well-functioning society that takes ALL of its members into consideration, while accepting that some level of suffering is unavoidable. Today, the balance has been, and is being shifted towards the more 'liberal' perspective, which prioritizes equality and 'lack of harm' over responsibility and fairness. That approach, as we've seen, seeks to remove any and all suffering from people's lived experience. That, by definition, MUST come at the expense of responsibility (to society) and REAL fairness (which must implicitly involve an acceptance of suffering as a part of life).

 

[Joe]

Oh yes very interesting stuff this homo plague thingy, almost feels like pandemics. I've also noticed some weird sensations while some homosexuals are walkin' and talkin' behind or towards me - like some strong entity/beast is trying to convert me to there side - excuse me, but than my butts began to shiver (in lack of better term ) like those already infected are radiating some strong homo force of some sort. So maybe this ain't only physical issue (bugs&co) but psychic phenomenon also. What a strange urge that is!

I should have said something about this post at the time, but better late than never. Yozilla, this isn't helpful, and is perhaps the only example in this thread of real homophobia. There's a reason that someone who expresses such sentiments is accused of being a 'closet homosexual'; it's not because they are actually homosexual, but that they are manifesting the same type of hysteria or hysterical thinking that typifies the stereotypical gay person.

 

[Joe]

I would say this is a generalisation that doesn’t correspond with my experience of life so far

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

Given that I said:

I think, on average, sexuality and sexual identity looms larger in the lives of gay people than heteros.

Don't you think you are contradicting yourself here?

 

[Joe]

Don't you have any compassion for a dad whose children are forced to watch gay perversion on gay prides?

I think that's reasonable.

For a kid being disturbed when having to see two men kiss in public?

Not sure this is reasonable.

For heteros having to walk on eggshells around gays for fear of repercussions?

Anyone having to walk on eggshells around anyone else is a problem.

I think part of the "gay pride" indoctrination is a total identification with sexual orientation. You go from "I prefer dudes", to "I'm gay", then to "that's my most important feature" and finally to "I'm oppressed and denied my rights if I cannot express my gay identity everywhere, all the time". I sure hope you are much more than "a gay". In fact, isn't that idea of "gay identity" strengthening homophobia? Isn't that what a real bigot would say: I don't see you as a human being, but simply as a homo?

Very good point, and an example of how 'gay culture' is setting gay people up to be viewed as outliers and targets. Very similar to the way Jewish leaders have, for centuries (millennia really) manipulated ordinary Jews to set themselves apart. Very bad idea, and the temporary benefits will definitely not outweigh the ultimate cost, at least to the rank and file.

 

[Scottie]

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

I was just saying this morning that the whole pathogen thing could simply be like a "symptom" in the bigger picture... As in ID, information field, physical manifestations of higher-density goings-on, and that kind of thing.

It always helps to zoom out and consider the bigger picture...

Coincidently, I've been thinking today about Jahn and Dunne's results. Watched recently an interview on YouTube with Brenda Dunne (plus, she's funny) where she also points out, if I recall correctly, that men usually have small but consitent effects on the RNGs, while women have larger but inconsistent effects. Couples obtained even larger and more consistent effects. Fascinating and mysterious.

And what better way to crush any positive man + woman "empowerment" than by promoting homosexuality, the "independence" of women, the "Screw it, I'm going my own way" thing in men, people (falsely) switching genders thereby rendering them effectively impotent, and don't forget the pedophilia for good measure?

Of course, one must also keep in mind the fact that man + woman does not automatically equal positive outcome. I imagine that if the effect is amplified x6 vs an individual, the direction of that amplification matters quite a lot and should not be done (consciously or unconsciously) in a negative direction. Easier said than done.

when Eggsy is about to save the world and Swedish princess - my jaw literally dropped

That one line ruined that entire movie for me! It had nothing to do with anything, and was thrown in at the very end just to be, what... "Cool"? Funny? Pure shock value? It was completely useless and asinine.

I got the impression both Cyre and PhoenixToEmber expected people to stop feeling the instinctive emotion, rather than referring to stopping its external expression. The first one is pretty much as achievable as consciously stopping the feeling of disgust towards maggots or rotten food, an analogy from the articles quoted above. It happens automatically and cannot really be stopped.

This is perhaps the most important distinction that needs to be recognized. An inability to make such distinctions is precisely the problem with the whole SJW/lefty movement, a prime example being the, "So what you're saying is...[insert absolute nonsense here]?" interview with Jordan Peterson.

Asking people not to have certain gut reactions to things is asking them not to be human. Or, worse, it's shaming them for having such reactions. Since these reactions do appear to be biological in nature, that's no different than saying that it's inherently bad and wrong for someone to be sexually aroused by another person. Eh, no. What you DO about it, that's what counts. If we go down that route, then we may as well just kill ourselves off now, because no one is "innocent" or "evolved" or however you want to look at it.

I agree that most posts here focus on being exposed to public expression of sexual behaviours, not gay people in general. But Yozilla showed disgust towards gay forum members with a graphic description and emojis, which showed no external consideration at all IMO.

If my rear started started "shivering" when a gay man was near, I would sit down and do some rather deep soul-searching. I certainly would not attribute it to some sort of "Gay Ray" being emitted by the other person. I'm pretty sure the idea of a pathogen was meant not like some kind of communicable disease, but rather a potential "key" that might explain already-discovered biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (like in certain brain structures). At least, that's the way I was considering it.

And, as L pointed out in her most recent post with the snippet from Pierre's book, any specific pathogen that may have certain effects is a drop in the bucket when considering the big, universal picture.