Gay Bowel Syndrome

Pic here.

Good Lord! What is that a picture of anyway? I Googled “Gay Bowel Syndrome” and this is what I came up with. I haven’t the faintest idea what is going on with this poor fellow. I have also heard that gay men who have lots of anal sex end up with “cauliflower assholes.” Is that what is going on here? Are those nothing but huge hemorrhoids?

Good Lord that is gross!

The Difficulty of Female to Male HIV Transmission in the US

Dan F. writes:

Hi Bob,

You wrote: “The men all got it from sharing needles or from getting ass fucked by a guy.”

And then when I mentioned Darren James, who was filmed having vaginal sex when infected, you agreed that your statement was incorrect:

“NO! Darren James is the only male porn star who got HIV from a woman. There has not yet been one, one, one, one, one other case yet”

At least, given your acknowledgement, you should change your statement from “all” to the “vast majority.” How can you be so certain that every single male porn star who got HIV didn’t get get it from vaginal sex? Except for the one guy whose moment of infection happens to be documented on video, you really believe no one else has ever been infected this way?

That this has only happened once in history, to Darren James of all people during the scene that is widely available? You are perpetuating a myth! Yes, it is much more likely that a man will give it to a women as you state, but vaginal fluids can enter the urethra. There are plenty of anonymous stories on Avert of men who claim to have been infected through vaginal sex.

Darren James got it from fucking a Brazilian porn star in the ass while down in Brazil. From insertive anal sex. His moment of infection is not a documented instance of vaginal sex on video. The apparently documented infection is a case of anal sex, not vaginal sex.

There have been only a few other HIV infections in the porn industry. John Holmes acquired HIV, but he was also a heavy drug user and he made some gay porn films at the end of his career. Another man got it, found out by a test and faked a test result to keep on working. Whereupon he infected at least one woman. Another man was recently found to be infected. He was a bit coy about how he might have gotten it, but inquiries to people who knew him said that in recent days he had been engaging in gay male prostitution on the side for extra money. So it appears that he acquired HIV homosexually.

29 American women have acquired HIV in the porn industry. Many of them kept on working for a while while they were infected because they did not know they were infected. They had quite a bit of sex with quite a few porn stars. Not one of these males ever got HIV from a woman in the porn industry. My understanding is that not one of these HIV infected female porn stars has given the disease to any of their male partners after they left the industry.

I had an HIV infected Black woman come on here and say that the disease only goes male to female. She has been having sex with her husband for several years after infection, and he is not yet infected. In addition, she said that none of the females she knows who are infected with HIV have ever given it to their husbands or boyfriends.

Insertive heterosexual anal sex is quite a bit more risky than insertive vaginal sex. In a study done in the 1980′s with discordant couples over a 4-5 year period, only 20% of the males had acquired HIV from their wives. After 4-500 instances of vaginal sex, only 20% of the men were infected. So if you have sex with an HIV positive woman 500 times, you have an 80% chance of not getting infected! Those are pretty long odds.

Around 1990, we heard stories out of New York Public Health investigators about how hard it was for this disease to go woman to man. They had had quite a few guys who claimed that they got it from a woman, but the more the investigators questioned them and the people who knew them, almost 100% of these guys eventually broke down and admitted that they got it through other means, either needles or typically through gay sex.

It has been shown that there are high levels of HIV in Black women. The men who gave it to them often insist that they got it from a woman. However, upon investigation, a large number of these male cases were actually acquired by gay sex on the down low. It has now been proven that the vast majority of Black women being infected in the US are getting it from Black men on the down low.

You are much more likely to get it from a woman if you are not circumcised. Uncircumcised men are much more at risk.

The type of HIV found in the US is very hard to transmit woman to man. That is because it mutated into a strictly blood-borne virus for some reason, possibly due to ease of transmission through needles and the high amount of homosexual sex we have in the West. In other parts of the world, the virus is not only blood borne -titers are also high in other fluids.

However, the subtype in the US has very low titers in vaginal fluids. They are so low that one wonders if they can even transmit infection – that is how low they are. And if by chance you do get infected vaginally by a woman, your dose is so low that you often only get a “mild” case of HIV, if such a thing is possible. For instance, Magic Johnson got HIV from a woman 23 years ago, and his symptoms have been so mild that he has not yet even started HIV drugs yet.

One can definitely get HIV from a woman in the US via heterosexual sex. Cases have obviously been documented. However, history shows that it is quite hard for a male to get the disease this way. But via my loose, intuitive and Gestalt approach to the data, it does seem that females are transmitting HIV a bit easier to males these days in the US than they did 20-30 years ago. I have no idea why heterosexual sex is a bit more risky for males in the US than it used to be, but I can tell you that the risk is quite low, and with a condom it is effectively zero.

Golden Bomber – JPop

Whereas the previous KPop boy band that I posted, Shinee, was seriously fagged out, this Japanese Jpop band, Golden Bomber, is not nearly so much. Instead, these are androgynes along the Iggy Pop, Jim Morrison, David Bowie, New York Dolls, Steve Tyler, Mott the Hoople, Mick Jagger lines. Sort of 1970′s glam/rock and roll stuff.

For some reason, I also felt that these guys were heterosexual. They just come off as pretty masculine, much more masculine in fact that the Shinee characters. Incidentally, I looked up Shinee and there is not much evidence that they are gay. One dated a famous Korean movie actress. Others talk about women all the time. A lot of them are young and not dating much as they are too busy all the time. There is only one who may be gay, but no one is sure even about him.

I also looked up Golden Bomber, and all these guys are apparently vigorously heterosexual, as I suspected, but then I am pretty good at figuring this stuff out. The more masculine the man acts, the more likely he is to be more straight, and the Golden Bomber guys have a strong masculine core about their psyches. On the other hand, the more feminine a man is, the more likely he is to be gay. But there are all sorts of exceptions to this rule.

This is even true among gay and bisexual man. The more masculine the gay man acts, the more bisexual is, and the more likely he is to have sex with women or even to be married or have a marriage in his background. The more queeny he is, the more likely he is to be quite gay or purely gay.

This is also true to some extent with straight men. The most vigorously masculine straight men are the most homophobic and the least likely to have any homosexual experience or attraction. As straight males become increasing less macho, more androgynous, feminine or even effeminate, tolerance for homosexuality rises and so does homosexual experimentation or even frank bisexuality. Nevertheless, there are millions of guys on the faggoty spectrum who are 100% heterosexual in thinking and behavior. How do I know this? Because I have met them, and I can tell if a man is completely straight or not. It’s actually quite simple.

Male androgynes are notoriously hard to figure out and are very confusing. They can be anywhere from completely straight to somewhere on the bisexual spectrum to basically gay. In general, they are gigantic sexual question marks.

Social Distortion, “Under My Thumb”

Orange County punk rock from the early 1980′s! Fantastic! I saw these guys at some ballroom (?) in Anaheim (?) around October 1982. I forget who went with me. A lot of hot little punker chicks, or punker bitches, or whatever you want to call them. Some were bitches, some were just chicks. They played this song. It was out of this world!

Really weird thing about the hardcore punk scene at the time was that most of the punker chicks were bisexual, but most of the punk guys were straight and really hated male homosexuality. Those few males were were homosexually oriented were typically bisexual (see Darby Crash and Pat Smear of the Germs). There weren’t that many flat out lesbian punker chicks.

It worked out this way because of the highly aggro nature of the scene. When males are highly masculinized, they become fiercely heterosexual and hate male homosexuality. When females get pretty aggressive (frankly masculinized) there is a movement towards lesbianism or female bisexuality.

Why there was not a lot of overt lesbianism in the scene, I am not sure, but those aggro punker chicks really liked hard, tough, rough, badass hypermasculine punker guys. The whole scene just worshiped this kind of masculine and aggressive behavior. Lesbians hate nothing so much as aggressive or masculine males, which is odd since they act so masculine themselves. So much about homosexuality doesn’t seem to make much sense.

The lead singer’s name is Mike Ness. I think he was on heroin at some point, but I could be wrong.

Get a Woman To Get Women

This is another in a series of articles where I try my hand at Game Theory, which is basically showing guys how to get women. This is a collaborative exercise. In other words, I am not Joe Stud teaching losers who can’t get women how to get one. This is a collaborative effort whereby males share their knowledge and experience as far as what works to get women.

One thing that I would like to say is very painful. It’s this:

You need to get a woman to get women. Or, you need to have a woman to get women. You get one woman, now you get more. See? The problem with this is, What about the guy who has no women, or, worse, who has never had any at all? I don’t want to say he is up the creek, but his prospects do not look too good.

If you had success with females in the past, then typically you can parlay that into more success in the future. So in that case, you don’t need to have a woman to get a woman. If you had a woman, you can get a woman. Or if you had women (better yet) you can get new ones.

The one common requirement here is experience and success. As with so much else in life, what to say to those poor souls who lack either or both? I do not know what to say to such a person.

However, there was a time in my teens when I had little or no success with females. At 16, I had hardly even been kissed. I overheard my father talking to my Mom in bed one night. “I am really worried about him,” my Dad said. “He doesn’t have any girlfriends!” My Mom said, “Don’t worry, he is still young.”

This sent a shiver of terror running down my spine. My own father was worried I was a faggot! This was back in the day when we thought homosexuality was contagious. Basically, all males started out straight but through some distortion of their self-image and sexuality, some straight males simply “turned gay.” A lot of us seemed to be worried about the prospect of “turning gay,” from conversations with my friends. And I read a Playboy statistic back in the 1970′s that said that 62% of all males have worried at some point or another in their lives whether they were gay or not. Probably for most of them it was but a passing worry.

Anyway, after hearing that, I resolved that I better to get myself some chicks right quick lest I turn into a homo! I grew my hair long, started smoking dope and listening to rock and roll. Wild fights with my father, sometimes fistfights, ensued. He as much as called me a faggot. He would sit there glaring at me at the dinner table, finally pounding his fist on the table. “Goddamn it!” he would scream. “You look like Veronica Lake!” Some old days movie star with fine curls. Which I had. Fine curls that is.

Anyway, all it took was the long hair, the dope and the rock and roll and pretty soon the chicks started rolling right on in. My Dad was furious that I was no longer a nerd. I dumped all my idiot, pussy, often somewhat fagged-out nerd friends who had no females in sight. I quit going to Chess Club meetings. Looking back on it, maybe I should not have dumped these nerds. One is now a brain surgeon, and the other owns a factory. Neither of these guys ever got any pussy, but I figure they must have got some by now. They lacked charm being nerds, but money has its own subtle allure you know.

Anyway, at one point in my life, I had zero experience, and pretty soon, I had quite a bit. I am not sure how I did it. It helped that at my age (16) most guys were complete failures as far as girls went. People were kind to me when I joined the hipster club.

At any rate, confidence helps. Even if you have dated 75-100 females, you can reach a point in your life when your confidence is zero. It won’t be appealing.

If you’re not having any success, I would urge you to shut up about it. I learned that awful quick. Back in the 1970′s, you were allowed about 3 weeks with no chick. After that, you were Loser City. Any females found out you had not girl in your life, they would start laughing and humiliating you right to your face. A few times, I offered that I had no chick in my life, and I might want one. I generally just got laughed at by both sexes. “Haha! Loser! Don’t expect me to help you!” That was from the guys. From the females it was crueler if anything.

I learned real quick to shut up about my sex life, and I also learned to lie a lot. My stock answer to every question was, “I don’t talk about my love life.” And I didn’t. That way you keep everyone guessing.

The painful realization that I got out of all of this was that at least at a young age, say early 20′s, pretty much nobody, I mean nobody, I mean nobody, is going to help you get laid. And the longer the incel spree goes on, the worse things get. Your confidence, formerly as high as the clouds, is now down in the mud. After dating 75 females at age 23-24, people were asking me if I was a virgin! They were asking me if I had ever had a date! If I had ever had a girlfriend! I assume they were reacting to what appeared to be possibly the lack of confidence that I was generating.

So now we finally roll around to the subject of the post. After much mucking about, the Whale is finally in sight, waiting to be stuck.

I have noticed in recent years that when there is not much going on female-wise in my life, I turn women off everywhere I go. Especially with young women, the attitude is basically, “Get the Hell away from me!”

As my love life picks up and things get moving along nicely, the women suddenly become way, way friendlier. Even previously inaccessible young women. All of a sudden, there are friendly and sexy females everywhere I go.

You wear your life in your sleeve. It takes a woman to get a woman!

More on How To Tell If a Man Is Gay or Not

Doug writes:

Wow, could you be any more hypocritical in this article? First off, I am a homosexual. I have never had sex with a woman, nor do I want to. So the first line of your article says “Sexual orientation is determined by thoughts and attraction and not by behavior.” This is true. There are plenty of guys who are married to women who tell people they’re straight but in fact they fantasize about sex with men. Things go downhill in your article after that.

Later in the article you say “[I can tell whether someone is gay or not because] gay and bisexual men act like they are attracted to me!” WHAT? Ok, first, you’re pretty average looking. If I met you, I would NOT act like I was attracted to you. So thus, how would you know if I were gay or not? I guess you couldn’t tell.

In one of your responses to a comment, you say “You mean guy guys just hit on any guy that they think is hot? That makes a lot of sense to me! I always wondered how gay and bi men figure out who to hit on.” This is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. How does a straight man figure out who to hit on? What if he hits on a lesbian?

And no, not every gay men hits on everyone he thinks is hot. I’m not a moron, I do realize that most guys I see are not gay. Jesus. As a gay man, I can tell you that there are definitely some very effeminate gay men out there, as well as some very masculine ones. There may be a very few effeminate straight men, but believe me, most of those guys are just closet cases. If you think someone “seems” gay, he probably IS gay.

No, no, no, no, no! You cannot tell who is gay or not based on behavior. This is the biggest lie of them all. There is a vast number of straight men whose behavior ranges from effeminate to androgynous to soft, quiet and sensitive and “not macho.” The number of straight men who I have met who got falsely pegged as gay or bi based on behavior is very high! And many, many straight men are quite effeminate. It’s rather common actually.

If a gay/bi man is friendly towards me, traditionally he gives off vibes like he is attracted to me on some level, at the very least. It’s not commonly the case that a gay/bi man acts friendly and not attracted to me. On the other hand, many gay men are unfriendly or hostile. Even some of those act like they are turned on by me, but many are simply hostile. If they are hostile, they often don’t act turned on.

Gaydar is the biggest lie of the century. There is no such thing as gaydar! And even if it does exist, it doesn’t even work! And even if it did work, gay/bi men wouldn’t even use it anyway, since many of them spend a good part of their time trying to screw straight guys. I am convinced that gay/bi men simply like hot guys. They don’t even bother to figure out if the guy is straight or gay or whatever. It’s simply, “Get the hot guy.” That’s all it is. The commenter says he actually tries to figure out if a guy is gay or not before he goes after him. I figure that is pretty unusual for gay/bi men.

Figuring out if a guy is gay is fairly straightforward.

Things that may mean something:

1. Acts quite effeminate. This actually doesn’t prove anything at all, but with a lot of these guys, I give them a “question mark,” meaning “possibly gay.” I like to believe everyone is straight because I think being gay or bi sucks. It’s an insult to think a guy is gay/bi. So in order to be kind to him, I simply assume everyone is straight until I have some pretty good evidence otherwise. It’s extremely cruel to assume that a man who is not gay/bi is gay/bi. That’s a terrible thing to think about someone. To me, you have just accused him of one of the most horrible things on Earth. Innocent until proven guilty!

2. Guy acts like he is turned on by you as a man. Generally speaking, he is also somewhere on the effeminate spectrum of effeminate/androgynous/soft, sensitive, quiet/not macho to boot.

It is not common at all for a straight man to give off vibes like he is attracted to you. Sometimes it happens, but it has a very different feel to it. Sometimes they act like they are very uncomfortable with the feelings. Other times, they act like, “I am having these feelings, but I don’t want to act on them.”

Sexuality “leaks.” Young men in particular are highly sexual. Their extreme sex drive is “leaking out” all over the place. So if there is a very good-looking guy around, some of that excess sex drive might “leak” over in his direction.

Usually I can sort it out regarding a guy who is truly gay/bi or a straight man having passing feelings. For one thing, the gay/bi guys have a very serious aspect to their attraction, like it is something they really want to act on.

3. Has zero interest in females. I worked with a gay man once. The good looking secretary types were always coming up to my desk for some reason. After a while, I figured out he was oblivious to them. They were like part of the carpet, the furniture, the walls. They may as well have not even been there, like they were ghosts.

Admittedly this is hard to figure out.

Sometimes you see a “question mark” effeminate guy who is working somewhere. He is extremely popular with the females he works with, and he is always hanging around with them. However, they treat him like he is “one of the girls,” and he acts like “one of the girls.” A straight man in a situation like that would be giving off some pretty strong sexual energy towards the women he was horsing around with. You will notice that the gay man who is being “one of the gals” is not giving off any sexual energy at all towards those women, and they are not giving off any towards him. This is not an easy thing to pick up on, but if you are good at observing humans, you can sort of figure it out after a while.

Things that indicate nothing:

1. Behavior. Degree of effeminacy or masculinity is not indicative of anything at all. The range of normal behaviors among straight men is vast. Many straight men are on the effeminate/androgynous/soft, sensitive, quiet/not macho spectrum. So are most if not all gay men. Many gay men are not even effeminate at all. Instead, they are more the soft, sensitive, quiet/not macho types. As such, they overlap with a vast population of straight men, and it is quite hard to sort it all out.

So many people double down on behavior when really it’s the biggest red herring of all, and at the end of the day, it literally means nothing. I have known huge numbers of straight men who have been accused of being gay or bi their whole lives, apparently based solely on outward behavior.

2. Married or not. Means nothing in particular, though most married guys are not all that gay. A lot of single guys are gay, but huge numbers of them are not. Quite a few long term, never married bachelors are actually straight.

3. Dating history. Means nothing in the sense that a guy with no women around is not necessarily gay. The number of straight men with no females in their lives for whatever reason is very high. Many long-term incel guys who have never had anything sexual going on with women their whole lives are actually straight. Anyway, homosexuality is not determined by the absence of sex with women but by the presence of sex with men.

Looks, Game or Status, Which Gets More Women?

Tulio writes:

Hey Robert, another question for you. You have said numerous times that you went through a lot of pussy in your 20s. What do you think was responsible for it? I know you said that when you were that age you were a very good looking guy and even had gay guys constantly trying to fuck you.

I figure that a man’s access to pussy comes down to 3 factors:

1) Looks
2) Game
3) Status

I didn’t list those in any particular order of importance but I’m curious as to how you would rank them in terms of importance from your experience.

That is what I used to look like.

1. Looks yeah it helps all right. But looks with zero game is worth bukwas. I have known great looking guys have not yet had sex in years. I know one who is 50 yrs old and he has never had sex in his life. He’s a very good looking guy!

Also when you are young, really good looks is not that great because it attracts whole armies of horrific, monstrous and diabolical faggots. Queers are extremely attracted to good looking guys, and if you look good, you need to fend these morons off constantly. So looks is really a double edged sword because of all the nightmarish queers it attracts.

2. I don’t even know what Game is! What is it? But anyway, it is really more Game than anything else I can think of. You just have to give off a certain vibe like you are a Sex God, or the King of Love or the Hottest Stud of All Time. Personally, I think I am King of the World, and I always have. It’s completely ridiculous as honestly I am a total loser, but I believe it anyway. It was my looks combined with sheer egotism that got me chicks. The looks without the egotism was nearly worthless.

3. Get women by getting women. You get a reputation as a player, and the new ones will keep coming up to you buying tickets for the next ride on your train. Females want a guy who gets women. If you don’t get women, you can’t get women. If you don’t have a woman, you can hardly get one. Once you start getting women, you get this aura thing about you. You get one chick, and it grows so big. You get two, now it doubles in size. You get three, now it’s tripled. And as your aura grows and grows, more and more females are attracted to you. Your aura doubles, now twice as many women are into you. It triples, and now it’s three times as many. Pretty soon you are attracting females everywhere you go, even to the store or the gas station. And pretty soon you have so many females in your life that it’s actually a great big gigantic hassle full of Hellish and insane chaos and drama.

Let me put it this way. There are times in my life these days when I am incel. I won’t say for how long. When I am incel, a lot especially young women act like I am poison. They are like, “Get away from me, dirty old man!” Total disrespect.

Then I get a woman in my life or more than one. Now all of a sudden something has changed about me. The women who were earlier treating me like crap notice that something has changed, and now their attitude changes a lot. It’s hard to describe the change, but it’s like an attitude of respect to say the least.

4. Giving off a sexual aura or projecting a sexual state. I have been doing this for a very long time, and I have gotten it down. It’s probably one of the things that attracts the queers, the bi queers, the bi queerious and the “straight but flexibles.” If you give off a really strong state like that, you will give off sexual vibes to any environment. Even guys will pick up on it and start making plays for you, and of course females will too. I can’t think of anything more important than giving off that sexual state. Problem is if you are incel for a while and still giving off that state, a lot of women just think it is creepy. You get a woman, and now it is ok all of a sudden.

5. Genuinely like or love women. The world is full of misogynists of varying degrees. Women act terrible, so it’s understandable how a lot of men hate women. On the other hand, a lot of men act terrible too, so it’s understandable how a lot of women hate men. I would say that misogyny just does not work, though I understand that a lot of players are misogynists. How do they make it work? I would say to not go the misogynist route. Instead just simply decide to really really really really love women! Despite all their faults and all of that.

For the longest time, I have liked females more than males. For long periods, many to most of my friends were females. I preferred to spend time around females versus spending time around guys because guys act like such idiots. Anyway, once you start hanging around females all the time, a lot of “brand new male friends” will suddenly show up and want to be your best buddy just to get in on the action, so you will end up with male friends anyway. A total reverence and worshipful attitude towards women by a man who truly loves women will get you further than the other things on this list.

6. I put status last because I’ve never had any status in my life! I guess I have some now as a writer. As a real young guy, you get status by getting chicks and being a cool guy. I also got status by selling weed. Around age 24, it all turns into money, and that’s where the real problems begin. I spent a lot of my 20′s fighting with bitchy girlfriends who were mad at me for not making enough money because they made more than I did. I also lived off older women who made decent money when I had no income, but that doesn’t last. Sure, status gets women, but as I have never had any, I can’t say how it ranks!

The 65-35 Theory of Male Sexual Orientation

I read a great book once by the legendary Australian sexologist Nathaniel McConaghy (referenced below). One chapter was on the sexual orientation of males. In his lab over the years, McConaghy had tested many males for sexual orientation. He kept track of the scores over the years and was eventually able to graph them out. It turns out that male sexual orientation looks something like a 0-100 scale:

100-0: Completely heterosexual. Maximal straight response, minimal gay response.
90-10: Mostly heterosexual. Maximal straight response, some incidental gay response.
80-20: Heavily heterosexual. Maximal straight response, more than incidental gay response.
70-30: Mostly straight bisexual. Maximal straight response, considerable but much lower gay response.
60-40: Bisexual leaning straight. Maximal straight response, extremely strong gay response, but not as strong as the straight response.
50-50: Fully bisexual. Maximal straight and gay response.
40-60: Bisexual leaning gay. Maximal gay response, extremely strong straight response, but not as strong as the gay response.
30-70: Mostly gay bisexual. Maximal gay response, considerable but much lower straight response.
20-80: Heavily homosexual. Maximal gay response, more than incidental straight response.
10-90: Mostly homosexual. Maximal gay response, some incidental straight response.
0-100: Completely homosexual. Maximal gay response, minimal straight response.

Well, as it turned out, ~65% of all males were 100-0′s, that is, they were more or less completely heterosexual. Another ~4-5% were 0-100′s or completely gay. The remaining 30% were somewhere on the 90-10 to 10-90 spectrum. I believe that most of them were on the high end of the straight spectrum. This gives the lie to the gay propaganda nonsense that says 10% of the population is gay. It’s more like 4%, and that’s males. But it’s possible that ~10-15% of males have a pretty considerable bisexual leaning.

One thing that is well-known in psychology is that many males who appear to be in the 100-0 category or thereabouts nevertheless have sex with men, sometimes considerable sex with men. A lot of the time this is situational homosexuality that is seen in militaries, on ships and in prisons or jails. But a lot of the rest of it is not.

A psychotherapist named Joe Kort, who is gay himself, has written a book and runs a blog called Straight Guise, which explores a lot of the reasons who straight men have sex with other men. He has various categories listing the reasons. Kort has had many men come to him as a therapist telling him that they have strong attraction to females and no attraction, romantic or sexual, to other males. Nevertheless, they are having sex with men for whatever odd reason.

I was talking to a friend the other day and he insisted that any guy having sex with another guy in a non-situational case could not possibly be a 100-0.

Commenters, do you have any feelings about this matter?

References

Nathaniel McConaghy. 1983. Sexual Behavior: Problems and Management (Applied Clinical Psychology). New York: Springer.

Thinking About Gay Rights

Repost from the old site.

Homosexuality – it’s a subject, that, as a straight man, I’m not wild about writing about, because as soon as you do, our insane society usually starts wondering WHY you are writing about such a thing. But you may be wondering what this blog’s position is on gay rights. In case you are wondering, this blog supports gay rights fully, including non-discrimination laws, adoption and foster parent rights and full gay marriage.

However, I feel that at times gay-rights activists go over the line, for instance, the latest case regarding Microsoft’s neutral stance on a gay rights bill in the Washington Legislature. The gay-rights jihadis are going ballistic all over the Internet about this, because Microsoft has taken a “neutral” stance on a gay-rights bill. Is that over the line or what?

My feelings on gay rights are based on my view that homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual attraction levels are 100% fixed in the human male by age 15, or possibly younger. That’s attraction levels, not behavior. Behavior is malleable in the human male – attraction levels are not.

Therefore, after age 15, there is no need to worry about any male “catching” homosexuality or bisexuality, at least in terms of what they are attracted to. I spent a long time studying this subject and the latest scientific evidence indicates that male attraction levels are indeed fixed by at least age 15.

Allow me to elaborate. This means levels of attraction. In other words, your average straight male shows maximal attraction to females and minimal attraction to males. Your average male homosexual has maximal attraction to males and minimal attraction to females. There is also a suggestion that most straight males have minimal gay attraction, and most gay males have minimal straight attraction.

There are males who are bisexually oriented, who may have, say, 70% attraction to females and 30% to males, or 50% to females and 50% to males, or 70% to males and 30% to females, all up and down the decimal scale. We can actually measure these attraction levels in the lab. This has nothing to do, however, with intensity of attraction.

In other words, a heterosexual male with a very low sex drive may not have much sexual interest in women. A bisexual male who is evenly attracted to males and females may have a very high sex drive (in fact, they often do) and may have tremendous sexual interest in females.

However, male homosexual behavior, or males having sex with males (MSM) is quite possibly contagious; it certainly is in many cases, and I have seen this with my own eyes.

Those straights who worry themselves sick about males “catching” homosexuality may wish to obsess about the fact that MSM behavior can be contagious, and its prevalence may rise or dip depending on the degree to which it is accepted, promoted, condemned or discouraged in society.

But they shouldn’t worry about males “catching” homosexual attraction. It’s either there to some degree or it’s not, and it doesn’t move around.

However, neither should anyone feel pressured into such behavior. I feel a bit strange when male homosexual behavior is completely normalized to the point where straight men are considered “quaint”, as I learned in my many years in gay-overrun Hollywood. Personally, I am quite happy to live in a quiet mountain town where the homo- and bisexuals are quite discreet about it, and few in number.

The feeling of going to the coffee shop and having 20 gay men slavering at me while I order coffee, or of seeing hundreds of gay men rubbernecking me every day as they drive alone, cruising, down the roads, or having gay men flirt with me or ogle me wherever I go in town, or in any store I go into, is something I can do without.

Not to mention the continuous suspicion from others that I might be gay myself, which is quite common in gay-overrun zones. The reason is because in these zones there is so much homosexuality around that lots of folks (mostly the straights) are always going around “wondering” if this or that single male is gay or bi.

If people see you out with a male friend at a restaurant or a nightclub, they suspect the guy must be your lover. At least that’s the way it was for me. So many people have homosexuality “on the brain” in these crazy zones that they are always jumping to conclusions about who is gay.

Furthermore, in gay-overrun zones, homosexual behavior becomes so normalized that many men end up engaging in varying degrees of bisexual behavior, including men who are married or engaged. When I worked in Beverly Hills, I figured out that about 1/3 of the men were gay or bi, including apparently my married boss.

In these gay zones, there’s also a lot of pressure on single males to engage in MSM behaviors, a lot of on the job sexual harassment of males, including of straight males (I was fired once by a gay boss for not having sex with him) and a lot of hatred for celibate or dateless males, even if you are only temporarily doing without.

Sex is also deeply commodified in these areas and in urban US society in general. Allow me some examples of behaviors that are extremely common and totally accepted in these zones:

It is seen as completely normal to demand sex in return for this or that favor or to blackmail a newly-jobless roommate (male or female) for sex in lieu of the rent they can’t pay.

You see many cases of gay men offering jobs and roommate situations to straight, single men with “no strings”, then a few weeks into the new living/working situation, demanding sex on penalty of losing your job or your place to live. This has happened to friends.

In urban US society in general, sex is all tied in with money, and rather than seeing this commodification of sex as a sleazification of human existence (my opinion) this commodification is cynically regarded as completely normal, “the way it is”, and those who object are regarded as evil, puritanical, sick, disturbed morality police.

These zones are what we might call “hypersexualized zones”, where we almost have a Sexual Dictatorship. Everyone has to be “doing it” all the time, well, at least the single males anyway. Single males have to have a date every weekend, and preferably during the week too. Males who are seen as not active, even temporarily, are ridiculed or regarded as deeply sick and disturbed, or even evil and immoral.

In short, these zones have transformed themselves into the very depraved, degenerated, sick societies that so many pious Muslims and Christians rail about. And these pious folks have a point. There is no reason sexual behavior should be mandated in order to become a normal citizen.

If you don’t want to do it, don’t do it. If you want to be celibate for any length of time, go for it. If you want to be straight, be straight. If you’re gay, be that way. If you want to act on your bisexual urges, be my guest. Feel free to have as few, or as many partners as you wish. I really don’t care, and I can’t see how any of the above has anything to do with morality or normalcy.

I can’t see how any type or degree of sexual behavior is immoral in any way. That includes everything from sex orgies, promiscuity, prostitution, porn stars, pornography, all the way to those who are monogamous for life, or celibate for any length of time, including a lifetime.

It’s sign of the sickness of all of the major religions, including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism, that these religions even bother to comment at all on sexual behaviors. Sex is simply outside the moral sphere of religion. No type of sexual behavior of any type, degree, or number of partners has any bearing whatsoever on the normal purview of religion – how to be a good person.

Here in the mountains, gays are essentially invisible and may as well be nonexistent, hardly anyone thinks I’m gay and I don’t have to deal with gay/bi men ogling me, flirting with me, rubbernecking me or coming on to me scores of times every single day. In other words, it’s a normal town, and it feels a lot better.

Perhaps you are also wondering why I am so defensive about celibacy. Well, my life has been interesting. Without going into too many details, I shall explain.

I have gone through periods in my life of being deluged by attractive females, such that my life would have been the envy of many males. On the other hand, I have also had periods of celibacy and datelessness lasting weeks, months and even years! On top of all that, I have also been monogamous for varying lengths of time.

And I can’t see how my behavior in any of the above periods made me a better or worse person to the slightest degree.

Feminism is Mental Illness: Are You a Rape Supporter?

From an insane feminist blog called Eve Bit First, we have a list to determine whether or not you are a rape supporter. If you check even one of these, you’re a rape supporter. If you check lots and lots of them, like I just did, well, you’re practically the reincarnated ghost of Ted Bundy.

All of this is standard radical feminism or gender feminism. Radical and gender feminism came with the Second Wave. Since then, there have been Third and Fourth Waves of feminist bullshit. Supposedly the 3rd and 4th waves differ somewhat from the lunatic 2nd wavers. Whether they would differ with any of the below is not known, but the author of this post, a femcunt psychobitch named Eve’s Daughter, is an explicit 3rd Waver, so I guess we can write off the 3rd Wave, boys! Also, it’s 3rd Waver nuts who invented the idiotic notion of “rape culture” to describe of all things, US culture.

Gender or radical feminism is deeply invested in hostility, rage, anger, etc. towards men. Many to most females who get involved in this stuff have varying degrees of man-hatred. Within the ranks of this group, you will find many women who are extreme man-haters.

The branch of feminism called lesbian feminism is particularly poisonous. That there are women who are lesbians simply because it is their nature is ok. However, many lesbians are lesbians by choice – political lesbians. A political lesbian is a woman who has become a lesbian because she hates men. In other words, she’s a Nazi. She’s a feminazi, a lesbonazi. If you hate men so much that you turned into a lesbian, then you’re a Nazi, plain and simple.

The Left has fallen head over heels in love with these diabolical man-hating Nazi psychos. Lesbonazis and feminazis are not acceptable anywhere. They are just as bad as misogynists, religious bigots, jingoist nationalists or racists. These are all varying types of Nazis. They hate people based on their gender, their religion, their nation of origin or their race.

Feminazism is wrong! Lesbonazism is wrong!

Bottom line is that modern feminism is poison. It’s a form of evil centering around hatred of men. It’s also a form of mental illness. Its arguments don’t even make sense.

One wonders what type of man would actually go along with this insanity. No real man could possibly agree with the insanity that is modern feminism. Only pussies and fags would ever go along with general feminism, and if you study the movement long enough, you realize that that is exactly what a lot of male gender feminists are!

A man is a rape-supporter if…

• He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion. Underage? Yes. Drunk? Certainly. High? Of course. The rest, no, but I had to think about the coercion thing long and hard.
• He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense. Yes, I defend the current legal definition of rape.
• He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man. No.
• He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked. I hate to say so, but yes.
• He has procured a prostitute. Yes, several times.
• He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes. Of course.
• He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional. Surely sex is transactional. Women from Old World cultures understand this truism of human nature very well.
• He has gone to a strip club. Sure.
• He is anti-abortion. No way.
• He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. Of course that is why I support abortion silly!
• He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.” Sure it is.
• He watches pornography in which women are depicted. No homo. If there ain’t no women in it, homeboy ain’t watchin’ it!
• He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present. Hmmm, Had to think about this one long and hard, but yes, I have watched porn like that before. Some of it bothers me a lot though. Some of the rest of it, sure it turns me on even though I have to admit it’s awful. But a lot of women like awful, that’s the thing, see?
• He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man. Of course that is why women wear stuff like that.
• He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed. Not really. I don’t like such depictions.
• He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects. Presented as sexual objects? Of course!
• He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification. Not really, but a lot of “sexual harassment” is simply nonsense. All it means is “this beta/omega/zeta guy is acting sexual towards me.” So what! Men have a right to flirt with, try to pick up on and act sexual with whoever they want to!
• He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them. Obviously this is true, but it’s more true in other countries. I believe it is definitely true in places like the Philippines. Those women are clearly inhibited by their society. And of course I support Sexual Liberation, and it’s capitalized, and there’s no quotes, bitch!
• He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill. Well, many lesbians are simply lesbians by choice. They have chosen to be lesbians due to their extreme, near-Nazi-like hatred of men. Many lesbians hate men the way Nazis hated Jews. This is not acceptable, and it is sick and wrong that society, and especially the Left, has demanded that we respect and give rights to feminazis and lesbonazis. If I want to refuse to hire a lesbonazi due to her insane hatred of men, that’s my choice. As far as the rest of it goes, I am not so sure. But prudishness and inhibition are going to be correlated with lower rates of heterosexual behavior in the female.
• He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention. Male behaviors towards women are indeed cultural, and feminists can work themselves into a tizzy about anything they wish to.
• He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men. No, women and men have different interests.
• He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s. No.
• He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women. Yes, but not the latter clause. I have never heard of anyone referring to women as being empty. A female is anything but empty kiddo.
• He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.” No, but it’s an odd argument. Who consents to be beaten? Weird.
• He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.” Yes, teenage girls have a right to have sex with teenage boys. I would extend that right all the way up to men aged 18-21 or so, but that’s just me. As far as the rest of it goes, the law is the law and sex with little girls is always wrong.
• He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children. Not sure about this one, but a lot of women want to have kids, bottom line, and they will just about kill to get one if they don’t have one. So obviously there is some biological imperative going on here.
• He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.” We do, in fact. Believe it or not, women do too. Trust me on that one!
• He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing. There are indeed types that I am attracted to. Unfortunately, there have been cases when there were women after me sexually. I had to tell them that I was not attracted to them. Sorry about that! Not really into demeaning people though.
• He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity. Of course I do!
• He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them. Yes.