The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[duyunne]

Well this discussion prompted me on a little "search" and there is indeed some evidence homosexuality may be linked to physical deformity. i remember reading some time ago there were similar findings in sheep, or rams more precisely but I had no clue this was found in men too...


Now whether this is "deformity" or variation in brain structure it is very hard to tell.

And to finally put gay animals argument to rest:



Pretty good overview of homosexual behaviors in animals, It does fail to mention giraffes who are according to the book by some zoologist I read while ago most notorious queer animals when it comes to males and hyenas when it comes to females. The author is hang up on Darwinism but nevertheless presents some interesting theories on how homosexual behavior may be beneficial for the species.

Earth

Welcome to BBC Earth, the home for the latest stories about our planet, the challenges facing the natural world, and solutions that to make our lives more sustainable.

www.bbc.com

It's interesting that you mention a physical deformity. When I read that I was immediately reminded of this paper from last year:

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

https://psyarxiv.com/hv28a/

Abstract

We show that faces contain much more information about sexual orientation than can be perceived and interpreted by the human brain. We used deep neural networks to extract features from 35,326 facial images. These features were entered into a logistic regression aimed at classifying sexual orientation. Given a single facial image, a classifier could correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81% of cases, and in 74% of cases for women. Human judges achieved much lower accuracy: 61% for men and 54% for women. The accuracy of the algorithm increased to 91% and 83%, respectively, given five facial images per person. Facial features employed by the classifier included both fixed (e.g., nose shape) and transient facial features (e.g., grooming style). Consistent with the prenatal hormone theory of sexual orientation, gay men and women tended to have gender-atypical facial morphology, expression, and grooming styles. Prediction models aimed at gender alone allowed for detecting gay males with 57% accuracy and gay females with 58% accuracy. Those findings advance our understanding of the origins of sexual orientation and the limits of human perception. Additionally, given that companies and governments are increasingly using computer vision algorithms to detect people’s intimate traits, our findings expose a threat to the privacy and safety of gay men and women.

 

[Z...]

Strange question, are you saying that there is no such thing as natural human sexuality? Across all of nature, sexual act normally aims to ensure survival of the species, so this pretty much defines natural. I.e. doing what it's designed to do.

I am not sure what Cyre thinks but my take on it is that natural human sexuality or physical intimacy is expression or culmination of deep feelings between two individuals , if we accept that humans are different from animals in that regard.
Using your logic also every sexual act between men and woman that doesn’t lead to procreation could also be deemed unnatural.

 

[Jones]

Ultimately changing legislation doesn't change what is in the hearts and minds of humans. People still found a way to drink during the prohibition, people still find a way to feed illegal drug habits, homosexuality goes underground where it is illegal etc. In the same manner, you can't legislate away feelings of aversion - they are just going to go underground and hide behind masks.

The reality is that legislation has never really protected anyone because it just attempts to mop up the mess after the deed is done and if the perpetrator is caught - too late because the injury or harm has already been suffered.

With that in mind I think that the LGBT community is currently infected by a false sense of security - which may be one part of the effect of the germ - because you can't legislate away aversion. And what if this aversion is more prevalent than we know and some people are just better at faking acceptance or tolerance than others for fear of breaking some new social convention, familial obligation or under the threat of fine or forfeiture? There are some who may not feel aversion, some who feel the aversion but still have a respectful live and let live attitude, there are others who will feel the aversion and their resentments are both building and being suppressed - not a good situation because something will give sooner or later.

To me it's pointless to argue that hetero's shouldn't feel aversion to homo's. I'd prefer to know that they do and given LGBT history, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, back to the topic of germs. If it is a germ that creates homosexuality and it is curable for those who wish to take up that option then why not?

Having said that, and given more time to consider the idea in light of the C's comments, I don't think that a germ is the only possible cause. For myself I could probably make a decent case that my homosexuality is, in part at least, the attempt to gain connection and attunement from a female source that I largely missed out on in childhood. All I knew was that I felt the drive to have closer physical relationships with females that was often frustrated. From what I know about working with instinctive drives in dogs frustration increases the intensity of the drive and satisfaction of the positive instinctive drives brings calmness and clarity. Attempts at total prevention of the expression of strong instinctive drives can create other compulsive or destructive nuisance behaviours, increased neuroticism or shutdown.

The interesting thing about frustrating drives is that there is often more creativity offered up in attempts to satisfy the drive if the drive is strong enough or has been strengthened through frustration and been on a random reinforcement schedule. Trainers often use this to see what skills the dogs can bring to the table to reach a training goal, or to test if the skills a dog predominantly already uses to solve it's problems will fit the training goal. With that in mind, and with the question of whether or not homosexuality is natural, could homosexual sexual acts be creative offerings used to satisfy other instinctive drives?

Apart from that, I'd still prefer to know if people felt aversion towards me and I have detected both subtle and gross signs of avoidance in the past without always having a firm reason for the cause. There's always the chance that I was misreading the situation too. Germ theory might explain some of those instances though I couldn't say that every hetero felt aversion or displayed signs of avoidance. Hence my earlier question as to whether some might be more sensitive to detection of the germ because of their own genetic make up.

 

[Candice]

This topic of aversion is interesting. Many heterosexual men don’t appear to have an aversion to female homosexuality but are instead attracted to it. Heterosexual men also appear to exhibit more aversion to male homosexuality than their female counterparts. I myself have noticed that I feel more comfortable around male gay couples than female gay couples. This bothered me as I’ve never been a person to care about such things but the aversion is still there subconsciously.

I feel I also need to add that none of the gay people I’ve ever spoken to have ever spoken of their sexual experiences in my presence, they are also all mostly in long term relationships. In comparison my heterosexual acquaintances are often bringing up their sex lives in common conversation, to the point that I avoid them socially. Maybe they’re also infected with a “germ” because I sure feel an aversion for their company.

 

[Phlebas]

I am not sure it is so much about making babies as the intent the individuals enter the act with.

Taking into to considering the impact of Freud, Jung (Otto Gross) and Kinsey have had on heterosexual relationships and the concept that there is some form of fulfilment if you embrace their form sexual liberation I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of couples having that type of sex aren’t having an experience of deep intimacy. I think it is more an expression of power and dominance.

The UK comedian Sara Pascoe recently released a podcast about Sex, money and power in which she discusses sex work with two woman who work in that industry. One of the women said that the vast majority of men want to create scenes they have seen in pornography with disgusting forced/rape themes.

In a similar way that the media industry constantly drives the consumption of needless items it seems likely that the adult entertainment industry is a social / sex programming enterprise that seduces heterosexual people into practicing dominance over each other rather than forming intimacy between themselves.

 

[monotonic]

With that in mind I think that the LGBT community is currently infected by a false sense of security

I was thinking of another potential explanation for the shamelessness. Social disinhibition. We know that anti-depressants have been massively over-prescribed. I don't recall where I read it (perhaps a wikipedia page that no longer exists) but long periods of depression along with high doses of anti-depressants can result in social disinhibition. IE things that would normally cause feelings of shame or guardedness no longer do. Toxoplasma may also lead to social disinhibition?

Using your logic also every sexual act between men and woman that doesn’t lead to procreation could also be deemed unnatural.

Not really. As intelligent beings it seems that the purpose of sex is not JUST about procreating. It's also about bonding. But that has already been explained in this thread before your post. Are you listening?

 

[Voyageur]

It's so sad that these deep friendships between men have been destroyed and hypersexualised. Imagine what people would say nowadays if single men were to live together, just because they can't afford the rent as was the case with Holmes and Watson.

Here's this image, for example, of the propaganda posters in the Soviet Union times. Notice the writing on the picture in the bottom right corner. It says "friendship forever". During this time there was a certain naivete, and although among themselves people could roll their eyes at this propaganda, they didn't think immediately about "homosexuality". But that's how it is viewed now.

Was thinking about this - in modern times for example, where it is still natural without these connotations; which the media tends to drive in - oh look, with the sexual diversity picture a hook. Now I don't know how people see these things, there own experiences, yet thinking here from my own examples; friends and others, men tend to engage with each other in terms of it being brief, yet not unmeaningful. When I see certain male friends who I've not seen for a long time there is often an embrace - a joyful reaction that you welcome their company reciprocally. It is the same when departing, knowing you care for them, you may not see them again or you wish them well. It is the same in times of stress and illness. This is repeated by many men - it is not really something one thinks about, it just is. There are also certain people; could be friends even, where there is a sense of boundaries, and one knows these things about them and it is respected, and that may be the way it is and perhaps has been through much of time.

As said above, though, encounters between men are generally brief, and you see this in sports, the embrace between sportsmen either individually or as a team, and there is nothing more to it. However, as you point out, Mariama, at least in the West, there is this hyper-sexuality program running in the background and often in your face which has ramifications.

As for this germ business:

The Cs also say proteins are receivers. It seems to me very likely that after an infection the host will change not only on a physical level. What I am trying to ask is: could it be that these known and unknown species are vectors on their own? With a specific capability to change the host, not only chemically but also energetically and psychically? Responding to a specific frequency pattern? And could these species enable intrusions of other levels? Could there be a link?

Interesting thread and comments, considering there are now 8 billion of us from who knows how long ago growing together. Now when Laura opened the thread, the second post was highlighted on the word toxoplasma, this is what crossed my mind when reading the first post, yet as people have said there are umpting viruses and microorganism exposures along with other factors, so it would be hard to nail down exactly what is what in that microscopic world - and what triggers reactions.

Breo catches and makes observation of the 'proteins' point - of being "receivers," which made me think of possible influence (e.g. what is in us, what we are made up of that could well "respond to a specific frequency pattern" via our proteins turning on, tuning off or combining and cascading from things like viral or microorganisms actions, like new code script being read out or, negated. Chemical balances are adjusted which can change mental frequencies and ones very own actions. So, this subject matter of homosexuality aside, perhaps it comes down to ones awareness of how the body works, how the mind operates - materially or spiritually and what ones does with information - working on oneself. So, being aware of microorganisms and viruses and how they could be coded and read by our protein receptors, just as one becomes better aware of what is going on outside the body in all areas (political et al), and being open to new ideas because ones FRV has changed over time. Possibly, FRV influences how frequencies, through the 'receivers,' are read and activated or not - thus influencing what is turned off and on et cetera.

Have a read from these older posts on viruses.

As for the aversion business, was thinking, too, that historically/culturally after surviving periods of great pestalance, when people were eaten up from the inside out, when the horrors of war disfigured while also taking loved ones, their friends, providers, and heroes, aversions might well become somewhat ingrained as a defense mechanism to danger - like there is no fighting, it's flight (aversion) for personal and family survival, and flight is queued from whatever the trigger was encountered.

Like a few people have said of themselves above, when younger I used to take my uncle who has Cerebral Palsy, pretty much everywhere, and his condition became more pronounced as he aged. However peoples aversion (not all) wherever we were was pretty pronounced - respectfully though, yet noticeable, and when people would see him there was no understanding. For many he was spastic and a retard, yet he was anything but this mentally, so it was tough to see the aversion to him while knowing he well understood what was happening; yet he said nothing and the hurt was deep in his eyes. So, the mechanisms of aversion may have deep subconscious roots in history indeed and become automatic and not necessarily conscious.

 

[luc]

Some of this discussion reminds me of our recent discussion of Judaism. There seems to be something similar going on with some people here who seem unable to shake off their indoctrination by "gay culture". Just like many Jews, they say "oh yes, we have gone too far", but still retain their tribal indoctrination and defend gay culture (or Judaism), often arguing that "we need to get back to our noble roots", not realizing that maybe there is something wrong with those roots in the first place. Many Jews also stubbornly refuse to look in the mirror when it comes to their past - it's always the evil Goyim who persecute them because of anti-Semitism. They never stop to think: what is the reason for this? Why is it that we have been persecuted? What did we do wrong?

The same thing you can see with some of the pro-Gay arguments. Why is it that throughout the ages, gays have been legally restrained? Why do so many people in the world still favor restraining open homosexual expression? Do you really believe that throughout most of human history, heterosexuals were just hopeless bigots filled with anti-gay hate, until the golden age of the 60ies where everything became great and humanity woke up? Is that your theory? Gimme a break.

Maybe, just maybe there is something inherently wrong with "gay culture" - and people in the past understood that once you allow gay culture to blossom in the open, it inevitably leads to subversion, perversion, to an attack on fundamental values etc.

Note that I'm NOT saying legal discrimination, much less pogroms against gays is good. Of course not, just as discrimination against Jews is bad. But we should try to understand the reasons behind those things without blinking. And this includes a critical examination of the role the victims played in all of this. As homosexuals, you should look in the mirror, and not blame everyone else for everything. This is true for everyone - spiritual progress begins by looking in the mirror and taking responsibility instead of coming up with simplistic rationalizations and blaming everyone except ourselves.

 

[Ant22]

Maybe, just maybe there is something inherently wrong with "gay culture" - and people in the past understood that once you allow gay culture to blossom in the open, it inevitably leads to subversion, perversion, to an attack on fundamental values etc.

This reminds me with an argument brought up in The Caricature of Love discussing the impact of overrepresentation of homosexual values in arts (emphasis mine):

“It would not be erring in the direction of prophecy to clearly state that homosexuality, far from merely receiving sympathetic cultural attention, is actually becoming a cultural force. If this only implied that the increased number of homosexuals were simply being given a kind of proportional representation in the arts, the non-homosexual might say, “Let them have a voice!” But the disquieting implications of Miss Clarke’s treatment of Genet seem to indicate that something far more serious is happening. Is it proper critical procedure for the non-homosexual to ignore the fact that, though Genet may be one “of the most gifted prose writers of this generation,” he is also its most articulate homosexual?

(...) “How are critical criteria influenced by this mass of overt or masked homosexual literature? (...)

When New Directions republished five novels by Ronald Firbank, a powder-and-puff Genet of an earlier period, the books were reviewed in several national newspapers by recognized homosexuals. Conceivably this choice of reviewers could have been justified with the argument that only a homosexual could assess Firbank in terms of an intimate knowledge of his material; it takes one to understand one. None of these reviews, however, discussed Firbank’s novels as homosexual fantasies. The uninformed reader merely learned that they were “interesting,” “special,” “sensitive,” and “amusing.” The question that comes immediately to mind is this: Has the non-homosexual the right to conclude that these reviewers were somewhat biased in Firbank’s favor, and that their failure to mention the underlying nature of his work constituted what amounts to a conspiracy to lure non-homosexuals into the reading room, if not the boudoir?... “Belvedere, and other homosexuals-who-are-not-homosexuals, resemble a kind of fifth column who sell dissension by refusing to name the cause for which they do so. Our altered attitude toward homosexuality, whether fostered by homosexuals or the result of an enlightened tolerance toward them, has allowed us to listen to Belvedere (and even see him as a folk-image); but this has brought about a new kind of Gentlemen’s Agreement, by which the minority seeks to impose its views of life and love upon the majority, The reluctance on the part of creators, critics and informed audiences to utter the “nasty word,” or the implication that it has no bearing if they do, is the cause; and a gradual effeminization of artistic and sexual values, the foreseeable result.”

(...) If it is true that some of the very greatest poets and philosophers and artists were sexually disordered, and the evidence for this seems strong, there is little doubt that some deviated geniuses are able to express profound matters in human experience without reflecting primarily the distortions and abnormal evaluations so common in their disorder. In current literature, nevertheless, and in well-known works from the past, many examples demonstrate the dispirited, perversely cynical, and one might say life-hating; reactions and judgments that I believe are typical of the brilliant and aggressive homosexual. The features I refer to, in homosexual literature or teaching, are not usually met in an open argument for abnormal sexual practice, such as that found in Gide’s Corydon. A generalized mockery and rejection of basic life values is reflected without direct pleading, sometimes subtly and sometimes jejunely but thoroughly in disguise. Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray is a fair illustration.

(...) It is quite understandable that persons who find ordinary or actual life intrinsically boring or disgusting might welcome nearly anything that makes nonsense, finding in it an unspoken but satiric comment on an existence which displeases them. Mere gibberish is itself a kind of negation and may, indeed, enlist the sympathies of those burning to express negation. Some may be driven to embrace nonentity or vacuum by the very fact that nonentity and vacuum are at least an opposite to positive human values.

A rejection of what is natural (...) could, it seems to me, do much to explain such tastes. I myself have encountered in actual men and women so strong a repugnance for any affirmation of life, for the simplest of enjoyments, that it is easy for me to understand how even a jumble of words and syllables, a random confusion of lines or paint splotches signifying nothing, might actually be welcomed by them as delightful.

Not all such persons are homosexual; yet I believe that all of them have distorted sexuality of some sort—a disability in love. (...)

Just a few years ago, the fallibility of expert judgment in drawing a distinction between the truly valuable and what is less so was stupendously illustrated. The incident was widely reported in news magazines, and is, I think, worth recounting here. The editors of a very advanced literary journal called attention to what they took to be a poem or a prose-poem, and pronounced it an astonishingly significant and original work of art. Their discovery was critically praised, subtly analyzed and hailed as perhaps too splendid for popular understanding, but in very truth, superb for advanced and discerning spirits. Soon afterward, the authors of this esoteric gem provided the explanation of their inspiration and of their creative technique. To have a little fun, they had decided to make as much nonsense as possible. They wondered if anyone would react seriously to their hoax. Making random selections, they took words and phrases from income-tax forms, bills of lading, a Sears, Roebuck catalogue, laundry lists, an almanac, and other miscellaneous forms of printed matter. These they scrambled together impartially into a hash of meaningless gibberish, which they typed out in blank verse form, and submitted for publication.

Like Towne, I propose that the persistent influence of homosexual attitudes and reactions, aside from overt physical seduction or frank praise of abnormal acts, may cause perplexity and serious conflict in the immature over an area of experience experience far broader than that ordinarily regarded as sexual. The sexually disordered person usually feels and evaluates the basic aims and issues of human life differently from the normal person, and pathologically. Whatever the sincerity of his intentions or his technical brilliance in expressing himself, whether in teaching or otherwise, he often promotes pathologic concepts which, to the immature, may be disturbing and perhaps tragically harmful.

To me, the value of The Caricature of Love is not the critique of homosexuality as such but the impact of distorted views about love and life on those who do not share this distortion. Unless a distinction is made, the majority will buy into distorted views as something entirely normal.

A quick look at catwalks shows where rejection of what's natural and fascination with nonsense leads. The below aren't necessary homosexual designers but as the above quote explained, if a distinction between natural world view and a distorted one isn't made, people without a distortion will buy into the distorted ways as something perfectly acceptable due to their prevalence in the world of arts:

 

[Chu]

I think the reason Chu selected that example was because it was something externally displayed and that's the problem.

Indeed. My point was that there are many kinds of people who are "different" (not as nature intended it, if you wish), but there is a choice for some. A deformed person cannot do anything about his/her obvious difference in order to "fit in". But homosexuals (also different but in another way) can chose not to make sexuality an overt issue. Neither case can be fully normalized and accepted by everyone without any instinctive "aversion" at all, as we are seeing, but should be understood, with empathy and tolerance provided hopefully that everyone involved cooperates to make that happen. But if those things are turned around, and society demands that people ignore the differences and judges anyone who dares point them out, then it's a problem.

Perhaps you just used wrong parallel - well at least to me it sounds very wrong because I would have never thought attraction to same sex is deformity or psychological disorder.

Well, here I think it depends on the case, but I wasn't going there with this comparison (interesting find, by the way). In some cases, it COULD be a psychological disorder. In others, a germ. In others, nature, and so on. I don't think we can discard options just because it's politically incorrect. A very long time friend of mine is gay and so is his sister. They strongly suspect that it came from their childhood and don't mind considering it as a "psychological disorder". He never saw his homosexuality as a "plus" or something to display, and he has come to accept it and love himself nonetheless.

This also reminds me of Andrian Raine's Anatomy of Violence, and how he explains that psychopathic behaviours can depend on many factors. Who knows? Maybe even germs as well. So it's not a stretch to think that many "abnormalities" (in behaviour or proclivities) ARE a psychological disorder, or have a biological substratum. Does it make them "wrong"? Not necessarily, just different, and not something that should be promoted as the "cool new norm".

How you express your sexuality can be a mental disorder, and even a deformity without a doubt but this is not limited to same sex attraction.

True. Anything can be a "mental disorder" nowadays, and we see society getting "mentally sicker" by the day. It is how the issue manifests and how the person or group acts, that determines whether there is a struggle in the person or not, a hidden agenda exploiting differences, and/or a "problem" that needs to be adressed or not. IMO.

 

[Joe]

“No uncastrated sexually mature male was ever observed to assume the female position unless there was a defensive need of doing so, or an obvious intention of luring a timid enemy to non-sexual combat.”

Aha! So THAT'S the gay agenda! Luring timid hetero men into non-sexual combat! BUSTED!

 

[Laura]

I am not sure what Cyre thinks but my take on it is that natural human sexuality or physical intimacy is expression or culmination of deep feelings between two individuals , if we accept that humans are different from animals in that regard.
Using your logic also every sexual act between men and woman that doesn’t lead to procreation could also be deemed unnatural.

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.

 

[Joe]

natural human sexuality or physical intimacy is expression or culmination of deep feelings between two individuals

In theory perhaps, but in practice, for the most part, it's not.

Using your logic also every sexual act between men and woman that doesn’t lead to procreation could also be deemed unnatural.

The impetus for a gay man to insert his penis into the rectum of another man is CLEARLY an attempt to imitate the sexual act that male and female body parts were specifically designed for, although it is clearly a major diversion from the original act that cannot ever produce the intended outcome. The original reason for these matching of body parts and their specific functions was NOT primarily to produce intimacy or deep feelings between two individuals, it was to reproduce.

The bonding that can occur as a result of this act between a man and woman also serves a procreative/child rearing function of attempting to make both progenitors of the offspring stay together to protect and nurture the offspring. Notice that a common result of a man having sex with a woman is to produce a protective/ownership feeling in the man and the woman. That said, it is not always the case that this type of bonding occurs, particularly in a case where the man or woman has access to many sexual partners.

So where does this leave the homosexual act? The only reason I can think of why a bonding between two men would result, is if the chemical pathways that are activated when a man has intercourse with a woman are activated in the 'dominant' male, essentially creating a bond designed to ensure the protection of offspring and 'ownership' of the 'female' (for continued procreation) where no such outcome is possible.

No doubt there is a whole other energetic or 'spiritual' aspect to this that we have little awareness of.

 

[Scottie]

Ya know, when we walk about "aversion", that's a complex concept with different layers.

For example, I have an aversion to seeing 2 men or 2 women making out in public, but I also have an aversion to seeing a man and woman making out in public.

None of the above cases mean that I hate, dislike, or want to stamp out or even betlittle those people involved.

In all cases, I have to ask myself: Why do they feel the need to display all of this in front of the entire world? If you feel secure in your relationship with another person, you don't need to "demonstrate" your bond to the whole world. I would argue that the more "demonstration" that is necessary, the weaker the bond between the 2 people.

As for "natural" and the purpose of sex, that one's pretty easy: sex is for the propagation of the species. DONE.

You can dress it up however you want, but when you think about why you find human body parts attractive, but not those same body parts on an animal, well... Duh.

IOW, if we weren't incarnated in a human body, we wouldn't have those drives. Naturally, that means that it's driven by our biological structures. There is a reason why our biological drives are so powerful, and it has NOTHING to do with emotions, deep spiritual connection to another person, etc. Spiritual connection is exactly what it sounds like, and by definition does not require the body.

To make matters worse... If you are bonded with another person, obviously you would want to share everything. Even then, and even if you are only ever giving and never receiving, there is always that little voice in the back of your head seeking approval for how well you give.

So, who wants to claim that their sexuality (whatever it is) is NOT screwed up in both psychological and Work terms?

Now, let's have parades celebrating this sexuality vs that one. Let's tell other people they're "wrong". Let's change society and pass laws that enforce the "rightness" of our sexuality at the expense of others. To top it all off, let's destroy what it means to be a traditional man or woman. And in all cases, let's make sure that it's the majority's natural sexuality that is poo-pooed. We don't need to guess where this is all going...

So yeah, aversion. Unnatural. For crying out loud, in my own family, I'm the unnatural one. They have an aversion to me. Not for sexuality reasons, but who can say which is worse? In order to make that comparison, we would each need to live everyone else's lives, as them. Instead, everyone just convinces themselves that their suffering is the worst, of course!

Ya know what? It's not the end of the world. When you think about it, we're all more or less freaks of nature here as compared to the majority.

So, we have a choice: pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, or fall into a pit of self-pity and despair.

 

[Keit]

Aha! So THAT'S the gay agenda! Luring timid hetero men into non-sexual combat! BUSTED!

Excuse me, but I just remembered a historical anecdote about the Russian hussars and French soldiers that shows a different type of tactic.

Allegedly it happened during the Russian campaign (or the Patriotic War of 1812). Hussars neeeded to cross the river to the other side, and on the other side there were French positions. Hussar uniforms were rather tight and not particularly comfortable for rapid walking in the water, so Russian soldiers decided to let go off any inhibitions and removed all their clothes below the waist. And that's how they went into the attack.

But they didn't expect for the attack to be primarily a psychological one. Apparently when the French saw armed and naked Russian soldiers coming out from the water and quickly advancing, they made a decision to flee without a fight, just in case Russians decided to employ a different kind of weapon.