The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[PhoenixToEmber]

PtE, just a general comment: please stop trying to impress us here with how positive and great you are compared to other gays. It's really transparent and doesn't help. You be your own judge. I get the feeling that in your mind everything resolves around you, which is not a healthy thing. If I understood correctly, Laura called you a "six year old" earlier. This should give you some food for thought!

[...]

Another manifestation of "everything's about you" - arguing about irrelevant things just to show us you "have been right". You realize that these things are totally obvious?

I think a whole new world could open up to you if you practice thinking about others, about their perspectives, what might be helpful for them, and try to put yourself in others' shoes.

Sorry, I was only trying to add to the conversation because I actually did take The Big Five test and analyzed it a lot regarding myself (not just that trait) which is why I wanted to respond, as someone that’s actually very high in the trait being mentioned as being linked to risky behavior - in my experience, that's not necessarily who I became, even while gay. I don't think it's off-topic, in that sense, but you’re probably not entirely wrong - part of me feels rather scrutinized here and perhaps another part does want to impress because of that. But regarding the initial point I was making, maybe when Openness to Experience clumps together with Extroversion (specifically Excitability, perhaps?) it results in more risk-taking and novelty-seeking behavior that could become reckless?

And I brought up the point about etezete not "to be right", but because Joe said Cyre was the only one who reacted as if others were trying to shut down the discussion, which simply isn’t true. I personally don't think that's irrelevant.

 

[Wandering Star]

I want to propose a hypothesis ...

We are (some) straight and we like or attract people of the opposite sex.

We set aside the convenience of being heterosexual for reproduction. Let us leave only the attraction and enjoyment with another person that illuminates our life.

Now, in an exercise of imagination, let us think that someone tells us that there is an unknown germ that "makes us be heterosexual" and that in the future it can be treated medically, making us stop being heterosexual.

Have we managed to put ourselves in this hypothetical situation?

Doesn't it make a lot of sense?

In any case, I also want to know and if the investigation of the gay germ reaches any result, it must be taken into account, like any other knowledge about our body.

For my part, I value the "frequency, vibration and resonance" of any person, as really important.

With my absolute respect for all.

 

[Seamus]

Sorry, I was only trying to add to the conversation because I actually did take The Big Five test and analyzed it a lot regarding myself (not just that trait) which is why I wanted to respond, as someone that’s actually very high in the trait being mentioned as being linked to risky behavior - in my experience, that's not necessarily who I became, even while gay. I don't think it's off-topic, in that sense, but you’re probably not entirely wrong - part of me feels rather scrutinized here and perhaps another part does want to impress because of that. But regarding the initial point I was making, maybe when Openness to Experience clumps together with Extroversion (specifically Excitability, perhaps?) it results in more risk-taking and novelty-seeking behavior that could become reckless?

And I brought up the point about etezete not "to be right", but because Joe said Cyre was the only one who reacted as if others were trying to shut down the discussion, which simply isn’t true. I personally don't think that's irrelevant.

FWIW I thought your comment was helpful and relevant to the discussion, I didn't get the impression that you were trying to distinguish yourself from other gay people, rather sharing your experience as a gay forum member. Just my perspective.

My understanding is that most of the Big 5 traits have "positive" and "negative" aspects and they interact to form a person's personality, so its not any one trait that determines how a person acts. Your hypothesis sounds plausible to me. Another aspect I considered is the agreeableness trait, maybe people who are more agreeable are more likely to yield to peer pressure from others in their group.

 

[Hindsight Man]

Keeping my eyes peeled is the plan. I've studied at least enough history by now to know just how quickly a situation can change, and how drastically; how evil can build up under the surface and then suddenly explode, and the next thing you know we're in Pompeii (metaphorically speaking).

And thank you for the birthday wish.

If geological data is anything to go by,then we're going to see more than metaphors.

 

[Joe]

And I brought up the point about etezete not "to be right", but because Joe said Cyre was the only one who reacted as if others were trying to shut down the discussion, which simply isn’t true. I personally don't think that's irrelevant.

It kind of is when you consider that my point to Cyre was that he was over-reacting, getting emotional, over-identifying, which simply WAS true. Yet you decided to nitpick on a small point: that one other person said something similar to ONE of the things Cyre said, but was NOT acting in the same way at all. Cyre WAS the only one who took such exception to what was being said, he DID single himself out as the only one being resistant to the direction that the conversation was trying to go.

I really don't think it's helpful for you to run to his defense in this way when all you are doing is shielding him from seeing something true, something that even you said about him (being defensive) early on. If the essence of my comments about him were pretty accurate, in essence, then what is the point in highlighting one discrepancy other than to reduce the chance that he will understand something useful to him?

 

[PhoenixToEmber]

It kind of is when you consider that my point to Cyre was that he was over-reacting, getting emotional, over-identifying, which simply WAS true. Yet you decided to nitpick on a small point: that one other person said something similar to ONE of the things Cyre said, but was NOT acting in the same way at all. Cyre WAS the only one who took such exception to what was being said, he DID single himself out as the only one being resistant to the direction that the conversation was trying to go.

I really don't think it's helpful for you to run to his defense in this way when all you are doing is shielding him from seeing something true, something that even you said about him (being defensive) early on. If the essence of my comments about him were pretty accurate, in essence, then what is the point in highlighting one discrepancy other than to reduce the chance that he will understand something useful to him?

Got it. Going to refrain from posting anymore, for now. I've basically said everything I had to say.

 

[JGeropoulas]

I'm not quite following your posts, JG. Everyone is a victim if they want to, and everyone experiences life differently from other people. Think of a child who was born with a deformity. It is NOT cool, and they cannot hide it. Homosexuals, on the contrary, CAN be very discrete about it. So if we're going to talk about "trauma", then we have to put things into perspective. Now imagine the deformed child forming a "militant minority" and expecting to enforce rules by which he or she is not only seen as normal, but also "evolutionary advantageous" or "cool", and forcing people into not having a natural reaction (aversion, pity, curiosity, etc.) when seeing their deformity. NOBODY here is saying that they should be condemned or feared. They can and VERY often are loved and accepted as good human beings (when they are). But that is not to say that all of a sudden people must be convinced that they have been "socially conditioned" to see a deformity as abnormal. I think it's stupid for people to beat around the bush when the topic of homosexuality comes up. It wouldn't be such a sensitive issue were it not for the propaganda and the "pushing". And it happens to be that it is members of the "oppressed minorities" which are creating (or being instrumentalized to create) MORE division when pretending to just defend their rights. They already have the rights!

Hopefully my subsequent posts helped you see my perspective more clearly. I don't identify with or have sympathy for the gay extremists dominating the culture, thanks to the propagandizing media. (It's important not to generalize, but differentiate between two different groups: gay people and gay rights activists.) For that matter, I have never even been a fan of "coming out" as some kind of entrance into society (though that has innumerable advantages to being maliciously, strategically and traumatically outed by a confidant--as was my experience twenty years ago). Also, I have always been a staunch critic of the mis-use of the charge of "homophobia" (i.e. irrational fear, crippling aversion) being made against anyone who simply disagrees about homosexuality's place in society. However, homophobes do exist in society just as do racists, and both feed the other extreme victim/affirmation end of both the gay and black movements, perpetuating the cycle Joe mentioned (oppression-->over-reaching liberation-->oppression-->...)

When I wrote about the experiences of homosexual people likely being inconceivable to heterosexual people, I was referring to the particular "flavor" of suffering, not the general phenomenon of suffering common to most people, nor the nightmarish suffering endured by some. It's much like the fear, powerlessness, exclusion, and inferiority a black person would have felt in the 1940's American south, with the added twisted pressure that being gay, unlike being black, is considered a "choice" that can be chosen otherwise, and any hint of being gay (excluding the obvious issue of sexual activity), unlike being black, can/should be kept hidden (a formula for paranoia, which at least hones some self-observation and inner separation skills related to the Work). The basis of empathy is similar experiences. So it's hard for a fish safely surrounded by an ocean of congruent culture (the extent of which they don't even realize surrounds them), to really grok what it's like to flop around suffocating on a fisherman's boat deck. As one guidebook soberly warns, "when you're at your lowest point and desperately needing support, as unfair as it may seem, you often have to be the one to educate and support those who've just learned your deepest secret which has colored every aspect of your existence".

 

[NewEngland Seeker]

It's really hard to see how homosexuality can be a "death knell" to a bloodline since it does not result in procreation. So I would say that this Annunaki idea is a load of nonsense.

I’ll try to add more details to this concept and see if you think this has legs.

Since the Egyptian religion was one of the early hierarchical priest & king power structure where royals valued their heritage, and since there were only a small number of royal families that were ordained by “god” to rule, and since the family’s status depended upon the number of productive males, and since this was early history the original numbers were small so if one of the families dwindled down to only one male that was gay then it was the end of that blood line. Thus, the importance was placed on male members of the family to produce more males. So maybe homosexuality was condemned by the “god” of that royals to minimize this possibility.

Other belief systems that were not of the hierarchical priest & king power structure did not have any condemnation of homosexuality then there must be a reason why this condemnation was not universal. Therefore, I proposed the theory that the condemnation was because of power structure and the small number of royal families that were “god” ordained priest & kings. Or another way of saying it: the STS 4th density families projecting their standards on the 3rd density counterparts.

Again it is just my theory. Does this have legs Laura or is it still just nonsense?

 

[Ruth]

I find the 'germ theory' of homosexuality interesting, but not as interesting as a combination of any of the following:

1. lack of exposure, or too much exposure to various hormones in utero
2. exposure to toxins in utero and/or in childhood.
3. psychological environment in childhood. Trauma and difficulty with either parent can cause people to make decisions that they otherwise wouldn't regarding their sexuality. i.e lack of good gender role models in parents. Hostility or lack of support from one or the other parent (probably not both).
4. genetic susceptibility (not sure about this one, but it plays a part in susceptibility to other medical issues)
5. and last but not least - past lives! I don't think we can assume that we've always been the one sex in our past lives. I also think that too much 'chopping and changing' in terms of what sex we are would be confusing an draining especially on this planet which places so much importance on sex. So... there might be a period of 'adjustment' where a person chooses homosexuality prior to going into their next life as the opposite sex that they were in previous lives, or they may subconsciously look back on a past life and wish to 're-live' that life because they are too attached to it. There's also the possibility that a person chooses homosexuality because it challenges them more on a soul level. It would be quite a difficult thing to be in the minority. So, they might chose a situation that causes it.

Just my 2, 5 bits worth.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Well, the Jews have done pretty well by being dishonest not only to each other, but to themselves, and abhorring diversity. In fact, it's the only tribe that has held together for about 2 K years.

That's certainly true and I guess that shows there are both pathological and healthy forms of glue which makes a group "cohesive". Obviously I was talking about ideal social groups in which truth, integrity and honesty are organizing values beyond that of just physical survival.

...
Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images.

https://psyarxiv.com/hv28a/

On one hand, this finding affirms two things gay people already know: their orientation is a hard-wired feature which has existed in some form since their earliest years; and their gay radar ("gaydar") is reliable. On the other hand, it's terrifying in regards to being a control tool for emerging fascist governments.

 

[JGeropoulas]

No, that's not Natural in the sense being discussed, which is the design element which is for reproduction. Sex was not designed to be an expression of emotions, though it can certainly be an expression of "deep feelings" in the sense that Damasio describes the drive for homeostasis.

It's more about the design function. A hunting rifle is designed for hunting animals or protecting yourself from others if necessary. Sure, you can 'have fun' with it by shooting targets and other things while still adhering to its design function, but if you stick it up your backside it's a pretty clear wrong use of it.

That's a cute metaphor, but like most, it falls short. So is that "hunting rifle" designed strictly for shooting, or might it also be designed to satisfy other needs? Are the pleasurable sensations created by our genitals necessary to ensure reproduction, given the power of animal instincts which ensure mindless, mechanical copulation? Perhaps genital capacity for pleasure is a separate function of sex beyond simply combining DNA. What other function is there for a man's nipples if not for pleasure alone? [Disgust Alert: I doubt many realize that sex involving the "backside" functions to perfectly stimulate a man's prostate, which can be pleasurable to the point of orgasm--a fluke, a hack or part of an intentional design?]
Is it a perversion when ears are used for something other than hearing (e.g. securing eye glasses) or tongues are used for something other than tasting food (e.g. French kissing)? Some paraplegics learn to draw with their feet after their upper body's paralyzed. Is this adaptation something perverted to be discouraged? Are enemas a perverted use of the colon?
Taken a step further, since a woman's "primary biological function" is to bear children, is it wrong for them to function in realms beyond child-rearing and homemaking, or to avoid child-bearing completely? Since a woman's biological function involves hormonal fluctuations related to their menstrual cycle, should they not be allowed to function in roles that require consistent and rational thinking (e.g. pursue an education, vote)? And since a woman is the (physically) weaker gender, should she be submissive to men? Society has said "yes" to all these ideas for centuries, if not millennia. Now we scoff at those restrictions.
I think to "reverse engineer" our designer's intent seems fraught with potential errors, not the least of which is that design certainly included much more than simple biological aspects (e.g. the psychological, emotional, symbolic meaning dimensions of humans). And as this thread alludes to, that design has likely been hacked in numerous ways.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Also anecdotally I have heard gay people I’ve known speak about their aversion for female anatomy and hetero sex. I have no idea if the cause is the same, but it’s something I’ve heard more than once.
...Personally, I’ve both been very comfortable and very uncomfortable in the presence of gay men. To me it all came down to respect and external consideration. But the same could be said for straight people for the same reason. Unfortunately when discussing any “aversion” to homosexuality it’s really hard to separate that from nurture factors and lack of external consideration of the other party. If I am not raised to believe something is wrong, and the person I encounter is externally considerate, chances are I won’t even know they’re gay. And if I got to know them and found out, I don’t see myself feeling any different [i.e. no disgust]- unless their behavior somehow puts me off, but then that’s different.

The fact that gay people are often disgusted by heterosexual sex should eliminate disgust as a basis for determining what's "natural" or "unnatural". Children are disgusted by the idea of sex at all, due to their immature minds and limited experiences. Adults are disgusted by thoughts of their parents having sex, due to cultural/psychological issues. And as for the universal, heterosexual disgust for what gay people may do in their own bedrooms, 30% of heterosexual American women have engaged in what's routinely referred to as "gay sex" with motivations that include curiosity, pleasure and a desire to bring pleasure to their heterosexual male partners (see https://www(dot)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30833227).
Whites were disgusted by blacks due to differences (e.g. nappy hair) or ignorance (e.g. hypersexual). People from the US, UK and Australia tend to be disgusted by enemas more than those in other countries. What's that about? Most Americans are disgusted by what's eaten by those in some other countries. Does that automatically mean those folks are eating the wrong foods, or that we're just accustomed to our familiar menu?
As Jeanne de Salzmann wrote: "By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts... you will become acquainted with your nature... Because you have to pay with your ready-made theories, with your rooted convictions, with your prejudices, your conventions, your 'I like' and 'I don’t like' "
All that said, I do agree that homosexuality is not the norm, typical or the majority orientation (but then, neither is genius), and therefore homosexual people need to pragmatically acknowledge this fact, as do all members of a minority group in relating to a majority--a principle I embrace, as a white man, regarding certain demands made by racial minorities (e.g. reparations, perpetual affirmative action, etc.).

 

[Jones]

On one hand, this finding affirms two things gay people already know: their orientation is a hard-wired feature which has existed in some form since their earliest years; and their gay radar ("gaydar") is reliable. On the other hand, it's terrifying in regards to being a control tool for emerging fascist governments.

I think that's true for some, but not all examples of homosexuals. Someone who is carrying a bug of some sort mightn't be able to tell the difference and assume it's hard wired because the bug has co-opted thinking and feeling. It would be easy for them to join the 'it's hardwired' bandwagon through lack of knowledge of other causative factors.

Here's a bit on what kinds of germs or bugs are common to homosexual males apart from STD's.

Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among homosexual men. They are primarily infectious diseases and include not only such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as being sexually transmitted. Among the latter are shigellosis, salmonellosis, giardiasis, and amebiasis. Patients' symptoms are non-specific and seldom helpful in diagnosing particular diseases. The practitioner must be prepared to identify a number of infections with similar presentations that may occur singly or together in gay men. Gonorrhea is probably the most common bacterial infection in gay men. Carriage rates as high as 50% have been reported, and extra-genital carriage is common; this necessitates culturing the urethra, rectum, and pharynx. Procaine penicillin G is the treatment of choice for most patients; spectinomycin is probably the drug of choice in penicillin-sensitive patients. In contrast to other venereal diseases, syphilis may have a characteristic protoscopic presentation. Benzathine penicillin G is the treatment of choice for most patients. Lymphogranuloma venereum causes penile lesions and inguinal lymphadenitis in heterosexual men, whereas homosexual men are more prone to proctitis. The disease may mimic Crohn's disease. Recommended treatment includes tetracycline or sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim. Shigellosis usually presents as an acute diarrheal illness. Patients generally require only supportive treatment with fluids. Herpes simplex viral infection is difficult to diagnose and has several different presentations, including lumbosacral radiculomyelopathy. Symptomatic treatment with sitz baths, anesthetic ointment, and analgesics is recommended. Venereal warts are believed to be caused by the same virus that causes verrucous warts; they are usually found in the anal canal or around the anal orifice. They are commonly treated with 25% podophyllin solution. Parasitic infections include giardiasis, amebiasis, and pinworm infections. Metronidazole may be used in the treatment of symptomatic giardiasis and amebiasis, but it is not approved for the former indication; quinacrine is approved for giardiasis. Pinworm infestation may be treated with pyrantel pamoate or mebendazole. Cure of enteric diseases in homosexual men must be documented.

Enteric diseases of homosexual men - PubMed

Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among homosexual men. They are primarily infectious diseases and include not only such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as being sexually transmitted. Among the latter are shigellosis...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I didn't find anything that indicated that shigellosis, salmonellosis, giardiasis or amebiasis had any behavioural or psychological impact. As Cochran suggests few if any are actually looking for that. But pinworm infections are better known for impact on behaviour and psychology (irritability, low energy, cognitive and learning difficulties), though the mechanism of that impact isn't precisely known apparently.

There's this about amebiasis - an infection by Entamoeba histolytica:

Outbreak of intestinal amoebiasis among men who have sex with men, Barcelona (Spain), October 2016 and January 2017

Entamoeba histolytica has been recently recognised as an emerging sexually transmissible pathogen in men who have sex with men (MSM), causing sporadic outbreaks in countries where it is not endemic. Here we report two closed clusters of invasive amoebiasis ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So amebiasis might be a contender and might not always present overt symptoms that would prompt a visit to the doctor in those that aren't otherwise immunosuppressed.

Cochran suggests Candida albicans for female homosexuality. I can think of one example where that might be the case in a female that came out later in life after being in a long term heterosexual marriage and who also demonstrated symptoms of Candida infection or allergy - though the individual symptoms were not pulled together to suggest one cause. Increased heart rate - tachycardia, joint aches - rheumatoid arthritis, abdominal swelling and cramping - IBS. Other signs a white tongue and periodic halitosis, cognitive/learning and memory difficulties and very impulsive behaviour. One example doesn't prove anything and admittedly I haven't been on the look out for symptoms when socialising with others, but it will be interesting to have in mind if that's the case.

I guess one of the lessons here in self remembering is not to automatically override any feelings of aversion, but to take context into account and be aware of what those feelings might be trying to convey.

Further thoughts on aversion - I think it could be either hardwired or learned. Children don't automatically display aversion to something that they should avoid and go through a stage of putting all sorts of things in their mouths as part of exploratory behaviour that an adult wouldn't. So I think that some aversion is learned through experience and teaching. Or maybe the aversion isn't learned but experience serves as a reminder or to awaken dormant instincts.

 

[hlat]

On one hand, this finding affirms two things gay people already know: their orientation is a hard-wired feature which has existed in some form since their earliest years; and their gay radar ("gaydar") is reliable.

I've had at least one gay person erroneously think that I'm gay, so I'm not sure about the gaydar's reliability. Maybe it's a heuristic that is mostly accurate but not foolproof.

All that said, I do agree that homosexuality is not the norm, typical or the majority orientation (but then, neither is genius), and therefore homosexual people need to pragmatically acknowledge this fact, as do all members of a minority group in relating to a majority--a principle I embrace, as a white man, regarding certain demands made by racial minorities (e.g. reparations, perpetual affirmative action, etc.).

I agree that external consideration all around, by majorities and minorities, would go a long way. I think the problem relevant to this thread is minority overreach, a minority trying to dominate the majority.

 

[Jones]

I'm also wondering if there is some connection to the practice of circumcision. Did some note behavioural and psychological changes after homosexual activity and then introduce circumcision with the whole 'cleanliness' idea in mind with the view of preventing the spread of behavioural and psychological changes that would be a threat to increasing population of certain bloodlines?