Daily Archives: January 18, 2015

Primitive Sexual Signaling in Human Beings

Lisa FOS writes:

I always get a bit skeptical about people (of any sex) claiming to being able to pick 100% of GLBTI ones. Except in some areas where there are large concentrations most GBTI people keep themselves very undercover in general society and most have become adept at hiding and fitting in. Chances are you have met a fair few GLBTI people without ever realizing it.

I can’t pick them out everywhere, but after a bit of close contact, it is often not that difficult because they usually reveal themselves to me.

Gay men are pretty easy to spot if you have a close enough interaction with them, generally a face to face interaction that lasts at least a minute or two. And any reaction more extended than that is quite simple, especially if you see them every day for a few weeks or a month or two. Most other guys can’t get it, but I can. That is because I am almost an expert at reading people. I can nearly read minds at this point.

A woman who likes men (straight or bi) during a close enough interaction with them, generally a face to face interaction that lasts at least a minute or two, gives of a sort of “heterosexual signaling”:
It says,

“Hi, I am a woman. You are a man. And I like men!”

That’s really all it says. It doesn’t even mean she likes me and it certainly doesn’t mean she wants to fuck me.

To me it simply signals that she is heterosexual.

I think I probably react this way to most females automatically, as I find myself in sort of a sexual mode with any close interaction with most females, even fat and homely ones! I do not know why I do it with fat and homely ones, but I think it is simply the fact that they are female, after all, and my mind automatically reacts to any mature female like this. The signal must look something like:

“Hi, I am a man. You are a woman. And I like women!”

Except that I never really think about it and it seems to come on almost automatically without my even being aware of it.

Now I can turn this off if I want to, and of course I do around my mother, sister and other close female relatives. Also I might do it say if I was visiting my friend and he had a beautiful girlfriend, and I did not want it to seem like I was turned on by his girlfriend. Just a matter of respect. I also might try to turn it off with very young teenage girls. They are of course a little interesting, but I can’t touch them, and I don’t even really want to. And I don’t want to have those feelings around them, so I sort of shut them down.

I have noticed that lesbians in many cases simply do not give off this basic primitive sexual signaling –

“Hi, I am a woman. You are a man. And I like men!”.

You simply don’t get that vibe, and why would they send it out anyway?

At times I get what looks like a stone wall of black ice, an icy glacier staring me in the face, a wall of sheer hate.

With others, it is not that intense, but there is a sort of “What the Hell do you want anyway?” along with stone faces and a general standoffish air. This is often in a store she is running apparently with her girlfriend, so it doesn’t seem to be good business, but maybe this stuff is so subconscious it is hard to turn off.

Other lesbians act like you are not even there.

With other lesbians, they might be friendly, but it only goes so far, and there is a bit of a distance and even hostility there, an edge, sort of like, “Sure I like you, but not like that! Don’t get any ideas!” Or at some point, your friendliness seems run up against a barrier as they throw up a wall that says, “Stop! Go no further!”

Some lesbians can be normal and friendly, but those are more likely to still have some heterosexual interest. These are usually younger ones in their early 20’s. I have recently met some lesbians aged 13-27, and they were quite friendly. Maybe the young ones are getting friendlier.

But the stone icy wall, the short hair, and breast cancer pink ribbon, and statue-like face, ok Shirley, I get the picture.

A lot of lesbians for whatever reason seem like they simply do not like men. I will leave it to others to figure out why that might be.

Some females are hard to figure out. They seem cold and lifeless, like robots. They don’t seem to give off lesbian vibes, but you can’t tell if they like men either. They don’t seem to give off any sexual energy at all. They simply seem to be cold, stony and shut-down people who are hard to figure out or get close to.

I can usually spot a gay man if I have a close enough interaction with them, generally a face to face interaction that lasts at least a minute or two. If I am working with the guy every day in office, it is trivial to figure them out. I feel like most of these guys aren’t fooling anyone. They sure aren’t fooling me.

First of all, many gay men are effeminate to one degree or another. It’s a stereotype, but it’s true. I have run across it countless times in the past, and I continue to see it to this day. A lot of straight men are not very masculine, and quite a few are out and out wimpy, but most straight men are not really effeminate in the way a gay man is. The straight men are more soft, gentle, sensitive and wimpy while the gay man tends to have more of that overt effeminacy.

Any effeminate man immediately sets off my alarm bells with me. I usually do not label them gay, and of course I would never call them that to their face. I would not even ask them if they are or not as I think that is horribly rude. Instead, I put a great big question mark by him in my brain. Then as I interact with him more and more, the question mark either fades away or strengthens to a conviction.

if I have a close enough interaction with them, generally a face to face interaction that lasts at least a minute or two, I typically get the same vibe that a woman who likes men gives off, with a variation:

“Hi, I am a man. You are a man. And I like men!”

It looks exactly the same except a man is giving it off instead of a woman. This is probably operating at such an unconscious level that he is not even aware of it.

It can escalate from there. But that is usually enough to clinch it for me.

A straight man will almost never give this vibe:

“Hi, I am a man. You are a man. And I like men!”

They just never do. Their vibe is completely different, but it is a vibe that has all sexuality completely removed from it. Straight men just don’t usually generate sexual energy towards other guys. Sometimes they do, but I might save that for another post.

If I am working with a gay man, he will usually start giving off this vibe, except a lot more intense:

“Hi, I am a man. You are a man. And I like men!”

Also he will be markedly effeminate. And if you look carefully, you will notice that even when surrounded by women, he never looks at them. I had a gay boss once, and there were all these beautiful women in the office. To him they were part of the furniture. Another man who I suspect was a closeted gay (fake bisexual) would be sitting in the room with us. A beautiful woman would walk in and he would not even look up. Women were like ghosts to him.

I haven’t spent considerable time around any gay man who has fooled me yet, but maybe I am better than others at this sort of thing.

If you think about it, this sort of thing (:

“Hi, I am a man. You are a man. And I like men!”


“Hi, I am a woman. You are a man. And I like men!”

along with others we have not delved into here like:

“Hi, I am a man. You are a woman. And I like women!”


“Hi, I am a woman. You are a woman. And I like women!”

might be thought of as “primitive sexual signaling.” These humans are simply signaling their sexual orientation to another human upon meeting them for a nontrivial interaction. It is probably most unconscious and may well go back to cave man days. And it is logical. After all, I understand that animals, especially dogs and cats, often go through elaborate nonverbal signaling gestures when they come face to face with another of their species.

So when we are having a brief interaction of a minute or more with another human, we are probably doing more than taking care of business or shooting the breeze. We may well be signaling on a most primitive level who we are and what we like, consciously or not.


Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Sex

Male – Female HIV Transmission: What Are the Risks for Women?

Robert I am a woman that had two one night stands without protection – one with a White American heterosexual men (he was about 22 years old, university educated – he told me he had a girlfriend for 5 years and slept with about 5 other girls) – we did it for 10 minutes total – maybe less, I do not remember – and he came the first time outside and the second time I think outside but do not remember.

The other guy is a Latin heterosexual man (educated too, I think he had surgery about 2 years ago, married for about 2.5 years) – we did it like 5 minutes, and he came inside me.

I am so freaked out about it and do not know the risk I have of being infected with HIV. I am going to get tested, but I would appreciate your opinion

I honestly do not think you got HIV from either of these men. Have you ever had an HIV test? If you are woman, the only guys you might have sex with who might have HIV are guys who have been having sex with other men (usually receptive anal sex) or have been sharing needles with other drug users.

If you are having sex with men who are not junkies and who not get fucked in the ass by other men, you have an extremely low chance of getting HIV.

However, I would recommend that all sexually active nonmonagamous women who are having sex with men get tested maybe once a year for HIV. At the very least you can show it to any new man you are dating as proof that you are clean.

If you are a female porn star or involved in similar more high-risk sexual activities, you might want to get tested even more often, like once every 3 weeks, 6 weeks or 3 months.


Filed under Health, Heterosexuality, Illness, Public Health, Sex

Is Hating an Ethnic Group for Its Culture Racism?

Chat Noir writes:

I’m beyond shocked at the level of racism in this post. Robert, I really hope this is satire.

It’s not satire. It’s the way I really feel. And cultural critique is not racism. These Indians could change anytime they want to. Racism is hating people for things they can’t change. It is 100% moral, proper, correct and ethical to dislike people or groups of people based on changeable behavior, and there is nothing the tiniest bit racist about it.

Some cultures are simply despicable, and it’s 100% moral to dislike that culture and the group that practices it. However, exceptions should be made for members of the group who step outside of or reject their culture. But if a culture is awful, most of the humans in that culture are going to act pretty terrible. There is nothing racist about hating people or groups of people who act awful. On the contrary, it’s the right thing to do. Hence it actually a moral act.

The PC definition of racist has really gone berserk and the word doesn’t even make sense anymore. I think at some point it is going to become an empty threat and meaningless word.


Filed under Culture, Race/Ethnicity, Racism

Je Suis Charlie

Read the titties.

Read the titties.

I wonder how old she is supposed to be? God I hope she is supposed to be underage. That will make people hate me even more. I am feeling lonely lately. Not enough people hate me. Boohoo.


Filed under Art, Humor

French Anti-Terror Operation Not Going as Planned

Via the Saker:

A source of mine with links to French police services has told me that the French Ministry of Internal Affairs had created a hotline to report terrorists. About 50% of the messages they got were “Allahu Akbar!”.

LOL, definitely not what they were thinking of when they set up that hotline.


Filed under Europe, France, Homegrown Terrorism, Islam, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Terrorism

Is Some Homophobia Acceptable?

About the title: you can go on the Net and look up definitions of homophobia and most of the examples are justified. Much homophobia is just ugly, cruel and wrong. This much is crystal clear.

However, some of the acts that are called homophobic are quite acceptable. This includes most of the acts that straight men do to avoid being called gay or to defend themselves if someone calls them gay. If that’s homophobia then all I have to say is some “homophobia” is fine with me.

Further, there are serious issues with gay rights crowd’s definition of homophobia. First of all, it ends up lassoing the vast majority of gay men by calling them homophobes. This is because the very common gay male attitude of contempt for very effeminate men (The “I hate sissies” mindset) is considered homophobic. Once you get to the point where your homophobia definition covers 75% of gay men themselves, I think you have a problem with your daffynition.

Lisa FOS writes: Beating up another, more obvious homosexual, makes you look ok in public, Hides you…6 months later you are having sex with each other

The GLBTI world has been going through a terrible debate within itself for many years now about ‘outing’ people. The consensus is it is a bad thing, and people should ‘out’ themselves if they want and only if they want. But, there are exceptions, if there is someone important (preacher, politician, etc) that endlessly attacks gays.while having sex wth them…then they should be outed.

I agree wth that. I do love it when some British lord, US preacher or politician who endlessly hammer gays gets outed. They deserve it.

So some ‘homophobics’ (lesiabianphobicis, TGphobics and all the rest) are themselves, at least to a point, attracted to it.

It comes down to time and interest, people concentrate on what is important to them, if you don’t give a shit, then you think nothing of it, there are 50,000 things more important to you (like the latest cricket scores).

So why does a ‘homophobic’ go on and on and on about it?

I have some problems with this. Islamophobes really want to be Muslims? Black haters really want to be Black? Sexist men really love women? Fox News types are closet liberals? Communists are really secret capitalist pigs?

I do not know, but reaction formation is a known psychological mechanism. A study was done on college students recently. A number of men were located who were always going on and on about other people being messy. Neat freaks. Prigs. Whatever. The study then inspected the rooms of these neat freak pesterers and found that the students who complained most about others being messy tended to have the messiest rooms while those who did not complain much had cleaner rooms.

Denial and projection in action. Projection is a very common defense and people use it constantly. You project off things you do not like or want in yourself, such as guilt, or anything really, onto other people and that way you do not have to deal with the problem because it is not yours, it is someone else’s.

There are indeed some very loudmouthed homophobes who have later been outed for having sex with men. It doesn’t work that way with women.

I suppose you have to wonder about some extreme homophobe who is yelling about it a lot. Why are they screaming about it so much?

Most straight guys are seriously homophobic – it is simply normal to them – but in general they are pretty quiet about it. Nowadays most guys accused of being homophobes are these quiet types exhibiting “normal homophobia,” and I do not think many of them are gay. And in my life, I found that strong acceptance of male homosexuality in a straight man correlated much more with later bisexual activity that strong condemnation of it.

I grew up on the beach with macho, hardass surfers. You are on the beach with a lot of the handsomest males on Earth who are hardly wearing any clothes. And you are often changing into and out of swim trunks so you are exposed a lot of nudity, often very good looking males once again. The only way to make a scene like that go smoothly is to completely ban homosexual activity, vibes or even thinking to be honest. In an environment like that, once you let that genie out of the bottle, things are going to get very uncomfortable very fast.

Despite the fact that this scene was probably a gay man’s idea of Heaven, among that crowd, homosexuality was never discussed. If it was ever brought up, people would look at you suspiciously, like “Why in the Hell are you bringing up the unmentionable? Are you a fag yourself?” The general rule was you did not look at other guys. If guys are changing around you, you look the other way. You never look at them at all. If you look at them too much, you’re a fag, and people will soon start spreading rumors about you, and then everyone will disassociate themselves from you.

Now the gays say that avoiding look at naked guys and having a taboo on gay talk is supposedly homophobic, but I thought it was great. It kept everyone in line and enabled the whole surf scene to be very smooth and low stress.

I never knew one gay or even bisexual surfer the whole time I hung out with these guys. Certainly no one was out.

And no one at my high school was out either. I can’t even think of anyone closeted at my high school, though one of my best friends later came out, moved to Hollywood, got AIDS, and was dead very soon. We used to hang out in the bedroom of his parents’ house getting stoned out of our brains. He never gave off gay vibes around us because he had not come out to himself yet. But when you brought up women or girls, he never wanted to talk about it. This is one thing you notice about these guys.

We also had a locker room, and we all had to shower after PE. I spent four years showering with guys, and it wasn’t very comfortable. But the rule there too was you never looked at the other guys. Sure some looking was unavoidable, but you could not linger. When you showered, you just looked straight ahead. When walking to your locker, if you saw a naked guy, you averted your eyes. I’ve never been gay, so it was no big stress for me to avoid these guys in the locker room as they didn’t excite me anyway.

But most straight men are pretty uncomfortable in a room full of naked guys. It just feels weird and creepy. And the whole scene has a “faggy” air about that really bothers straight guys. The gays call this “homophobia,” but to me, it’s just normal.

The deal seemed to be if you looked at guys too much in the locker room, people were going to start saying stuff about you. And not too long after that, you were going to get hit. Probably punched. In the face. Most of us knew that somehow, so we just tried to avoid a punishment like that.

I must say though that I think that rule was justified as it kept us in line, was very disciplining and made the locker room experience very smooth and easy.

The thing is if there are out gay boys in that locker room who are pretty blatant about where they are at, the vibes in that locker room are going to get awful weird awful fast. So the rule is put in to keep weirdness out of the showers. Gays say that is homophobia, but it is fine with me.

Also a lot of us felt that if you violated the rule, you deserved to get hit. So, easy, just don’t break the rule.

Although I suppose it might be difficult or very weird for a gay boy have the high school shower experience.

Where I grew up, especially with the surfers, you never called another guy gay. Never. Ever. Ever.

If you called another guy gay, he had the right to punch you in the face right then and there. And there was an assumption that if you said it to the wrong guy, he might even try to kill you. Most guys seemed to think that this was justified, and if you accused someone of that wrongly, you deserved that knuckle sandwich.

And a lot of guys seemed to think that if a straight man killed a man who called him gay, this would be appropriate too, as a normal expected defense of honor. I have played along with this code most of my life, and I almost never ask another man if he is gay, mostly because in my opinion it is very rude, it is honestly a ridiculous question and number three, just asking the question in the first place seems way more homophobic than not asking it.

Most gay men in my experience aren’t fooling anyone, and I can generally spot them if not at first then surely after a bit. I haven’t been fooled by one yet. Also I can generally spot if a man is straight, as these types do not give off a gay vibe when they are around you. There is sort of a “straight man to straight man” way of relating and conversing, and it is hard to describe but very easy to spot. Once you get that vibe from a man, in general he isn’t gay. But he might be bisexual as some of those men are more difficult to spot.

Gay men are trivial to spot as most of them act like they are attracted to me on some level.

It is exactly the same vibe that many women who like men give off which is, “Hi, I am a woman. And I like men!” That’s as far as it goes but most straight women definitely give off that vibe, even older ones and bitter so-called man-haters. I think even elderly women give off this vibe.

At any rate, most males do not give off this vibe when you talk to them, so when you get it, there is usually something afoot. The gay man’s message is like the woman above: “Hi I am a man. And I like men!” That is as far as it goes again, but often with me there is an added, “Hi I am a man. And I like men! And I like you, cutie!” which is rather unnerving. I do think that these responses are nearly unconscious in both males and females and are probably pretty automatic. There is probably not a good way to shut them off either.

However, I do feel that calling a straight man gay is one of the worst things you could ever say to a straight man, and most straight men seem to agree. The attitude is that this is the worst of the worst of the lowest of the lowest of the ultimately most horrible thing you could ever accuse a straight man of. Once again the gays call this homophobia, but I think it is quite rational and even normal.

And I do carry on in life with the attitude that if I call a straight man gay he has a right to punch me or maybe even kill me. Sure he will go to prison, but so what? I will be dead.

So I am very careful in what I say to any man and try very hard not to insult their honor this way. I don’t even ask obviously gay men if they are gay. One it’s rude, and two it’s an asinine rhetorical question as the answer is obvious. So why ask?Anyway these gay men have a right to privacy, and if they want to be out or not, it’s their business, and I have no right shoving it in their face by asking them such a rude question.

I think that straight men have the right to defend their honor with force. Some may think this is primitive thinking, but I think it works very well as the fear or terror of acting like a prick seems to keep most men very well-mannered. The gays say this is homophobia, but once again I think it is acceptable.

I don’t care why people act good. If they act good because they are terrorized into it, it’s fine with me. Fear can be ugly, but enough of it keeps everyone acting pretty nice if only for fear of consequences if they don’t.


Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Sex

French Civil War: The Counteroffensive


From January 8-13, there were 21 shooting and grenade attacks against Muslim buildings in France. That means three shooting or grenade attacks a day. Three attacks a day is what a lot of low grade insurgencies around the world carry out. There were also 33 cases of threats and insults, not that that matters.

What this is starting to look like is the insurgency in Palestine. There are regular low-grade attacks in the West Bank, often rock or Molotov cocktail attacks on Jews or Jewish motorists. Now and again there are some shooting attacks. There are knife, shooting or car (driving them into pedestrians) attacks inside Israel on a fairly regular basis. An argument has been made that there is no civil war in France because most of the attackers are lone wolves, but a lot of the shooting and knife attacks on Jews in Israel, especially Jerusalem, are also by lone wolves. If there’s no insurgency in France, then there’s none in Palestine either.

The two men shot dead in Belgium were fully armed and part of a large network. They had extensive plans for a huge attacks on mostly police and Jewish targets. Like the Charlie Hebdo attackers, they were dressed in all black. As you can see, they are even starting to wear uniforms now. Attackers are regularly armed to the teeth with military grade weaponry, bulletproof vests, support teams on the ground and fighters have high-grade military training.

All of this resembles the IRA insurgency in the north of Ireland (there is no such thing as “Northern Ireland” – there is only Ireland and the north of Ireland).

Massive sweeps of possible terrorists were made all over France and Belgium, and 700 possible terrorists were rounded up. Such huge roundups of possible terrorists are only made in nations experiencing some sort of insurgency.

As you can see above, the other side is armed too (sort of a paramilitary outside the state as with the Protestant paras in the north of Ireland), and they seem to be armed with military grade weapons, a good support network and possibly good training. How else did they pull off 21 attacks in seven days without being taken down completely?

France has now put in a crazy new law called “apology for terrorism.” Such laws are only passed in nations experiencing an insurgency. Peru had a similar law during the war against the Shining Path. Even anti-Sendero author Gustavo Gorritti was arrested under this crazy law. The legal attorneys for Senderistas, doing 100% legal work, were regularly arrested and tried as terrorists, though there was no evidence for this other than their representing anti-government guerrillas during a civil war. A number of them were imprisoned and some were tortured to death by the “Peruvian democracy.”

I have never liked these insane laws as they seem to be vague and against the very principles of freedom of speech that France hypocritically claims to be defending. I guess France believes in freedom of speech, sure, freedom of some speech – speech that supports the position of the French state.


Filed under Belgium, Europe, France, Homegrown Terrorism, Ireland, Islam, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Law, Peru, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, South America, Terrorism, War