Category Archives: Philosophy

Mother Nature Bats Last, Again

Mother Nature is embedded in your gender in a way it is not embedded in your race.

And no matter how hard you try to run away from Mother Nature, it seems she always catches up to you in the end. At some point you might as well quit running and just accept Natural Law and your role in it.

If you are a man, Natural Law says you act like a man, so just accept and do it. Quit fighting it. I have met a lot of straight men who were not very masculine, but most had this masculine personality deep inside of me, and when they got around me, I could see a lot of it come out because despite those who say it’s not true, I am a pretty masculine guy in a way. At least these fairly unmasculine friends of mine thought of me as “macho.”

When they got around me, apparently they imitated me and got into this masculine role. I could see the light in them go off as they got in touch with their deeply recessed masculinity. I think most straight men want to feel this way, and they feel a lot better when they start acting more masculine.

I have known some very wimpy men who were very miserable as wimpy unmasculine man. I later saw them become more masculine, and they sure seemed a lot happier. Masculinity in men and femininity in women seem to both hit that “sweet spot” in a way that few other things do. There is a real sense of contentment and being in one’s true place when one accesses their true gender roles.

Notice how gay (feminine) men and lesbian (masculine) women are not very happy? I thought about this for a long time, and I believe it is because they are violating Natural Law. Things that violate Nature are allowed to exist but often do not function very well because they are outside of their natural role.

Kids are raised best with a mother and father, and it’s best if they stay together. Children of divorce, single mothers, and now gay and lesbian couples are much less healthy than those raised in traditional families. The only reason I can think for this is because they are violating Nature in some way. If you violate Nature, you usually survive, but Nature enforces its law by making you less happy and/or less functional.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Personality, Philosophy, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Sex

Alt Left: Identity Politics Is about What You Are, Not What You Do or Believe In

Zamfir: So what is your basis for objecting to whites who hate non-whites or Muslims who hate non-Muslims?

I don’t like haters, especially those who hate others for something as core to the self as race or religion. I don’t believe in hating whole races or religious groups. You can’t change your race at all and it’s hard to change your religion. You are born with your race and often with your religion.

I don’t like bigots.

I also don’t hate people for their ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, or even gender identity. I have better things to do than to hate people for what they are. And them being what they are doesn’t impact me much anyway, so why be a hater?

I’m not going to hate someone for being foolish, suicidal, para-suicidal, self-destructive, dysfunctional, miserable, crazy (unless they are dangerously crazy), or idiotic. They’re only hurting themselves anyway. Why hate folks who only hurt themselves. They’re not hurting me. I only hate people who are hurting me or want to hurt me.

I’m not going to hate anyone for picking the wrong parents. How can I hate someone for picking the wrong parents to give birth to them?

I hate certain people for what they believe, true, but even with those people, I have some acquaintances who believe in these philosophies and I am still friendly to them. These people have chosen of their own free will be believe some really lousy things, things that hurt me and my own and the rest of the country. If their ideas are implemented, I and my own get harmed and the whole country gets messed up. It’s ok to hate people for having shitty ideals and mindsets. They can change their philosophies, ideals and mindsets any time they want. No one is forcing them to believe all this awful stuff.

These people are out to hurt me, and a number of them have hurt me, mostly my feelings, but still. If their ideas get put in, my life is going to suffer in a huge way. So I hate them believing in these projects that are going to hurt me so much. They’re basically actively trying to harm me and I don’t appreciate that and I reserve the right to hate anyone who is trying to harm me.

Zamfir: And, strangely, you seem to express a lot of hate and contempt towards those outside the group you identify with.

LOL, I hate paranoid, thin-skinned hater nutcases? Maybe so, my friend, but so do most people. These are the types of people who tend to get banned from every bar in town.

Class is not an identity. And identity is part of your true self in general and it is not something that is easily changed. Class is not some integral part of oneself the same way your race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender or even religion are. It’s just a philosophy. No one thinks class is identity politics, except for you I guess.

Having a collective interest is not the same thing as a hard and fast identity like race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or even religion. Collective interests are just philosophies, goals and interests that people take up in life. It’s stuff they do, not stuff they are. And you can change your interests or philosophy any time you want. It’s not a hard to change part of your core self.

Political movements are not core, difficult to change identities of the self in the same way that race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation of even religion are. They are just political philosophies, collections of ideas that people take up and push because they believe in those ideas and value them. Anyone can change their politics anytime they want. Not even now, I mean yesterday. That fast Political movements are what you do, not what you are. It’s just a personal philosophy of life, a set of ideas, values, goals, etc.

Zamfir: Seems like this is just the nature of democratic politics in a pluralist society: people vote to secure the interests of groups they belong to and care about.

I just told you the difference between ideas and core parts of oneself, often unchangeable. It’s the difference between what you do and believe in and what you are. Most sane politics is about what people do or what philosophies they believe in about how society should be run. That’s not an identity. Philosophies are not identities.

Not one person on Earth thinks that all movements of collective interests or political movements are identity politics. Not one. Except you I guess.

Zamfir: You even say you’d take away the rights of others to benefit your group.

No I wouldn’t. When did I ever say that? I wouldn’t take away rights from anyone of any identity group based on their core self. I would not take away rights from women, gays, transsexuals, Jews, or people of any religion, ethnicity, or nationality. I certainly would not take away their rights to benefit my own group. Are you kidding?

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Left, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Sociology

PUA/Game: The Incel Problem Is Clearly One of Perspective

This is really what the whole damn problem is all about.

I have a friend who is a Brahmin in India. Really smart, really nice, writer who writes books. Also very handsome. He told me he was a virgin til he married at age 32, and so was his wife of the same age. He said this was just normal in Brahmin families, and no one cared. I asked him if he ever felt inferior, lame, failed, depressed, idiotic, incompetent, or ashamed of being a 32 year old virgin, and he said of course not. I asked him if anyone made fun of him for being a 30+ virgin, and he said of course not, people don’t do that here.

It’s not so much the celibacy itself, it is the value you and society place on it. Like so many other things in life. Read some philosophy. Philosophers talk about this a lot.

It’s not the thing itself. It is the value that is placed on the thing that mattes. The thing itself has little obvious meaning in many cases.

Actually Wittgenstein came around to this in his second book. He ruled out valuation in Tractatus, assuming that humans were purely logical.

By the time Logical Investigations rolled around, he changed his mind and decided that meaning or words in language was determined by culture or society and not mathematically via some logic of observing some phenonemon and describing it. His latter position is correct. Most things are relative, spectrums are everywhere you look, and everything’s a grey area. Which is quite a liberating thought, if you dare to believe it. I agree it’s a tough meal. Close your eyes, say the Hell with it, and swallow it whole. That’s how you ingest life’s most painful and resisted truths.

You see, people hate grey areas. They hate spectrums. Mostly because people are basically stupid but also because they scare easily, and once you sort of say everything’s more or less up for grabs, you’re tossing the whole universe like a damned salad. Most people don’t want that. They want to be sure about stuff. Even if it’s bullshit, at least they can be sure of their bullshit.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, this is what I believe, and can we please move along now? Can you pass the olives, please? So where were we now, remind me? Oh yes, your vacation. Do carry on. I so want to hear about this.

Life’s not easy; it’s actually quite difficult. But humans always want to take the easy route, and why not? Life’s doesn’t make much sense, but who wants to live in the terror of a senseless universe but guys like Sartre? No one. We want things to be easy, and we want them to make sense, and facts and truth be damned, we will get what we want. Which is reasonable but sad.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Little or None, Man World, Philosophy, Sex

Most People Are Doing Everything They Do for a Reason

Most things people do, they’re doing them for a reason, and often a good reason at that (at least as they see it). Even crazy people for the most part do things for a reason. A crazy reason, sure, but a reason nonetheless. Once you realize that most things people do are for a (fairly logical, at least for them) reason, the world clears up and things make so much more sense.

For decades I ran around pulling my hair because so many “crazy or evil people” were doing all these lousy things “for no reason.” But I finally figured out that that was a lie. Few things that people do are for no reason at all. Once you figure out that people are doings things for understandable reasons, the world becomes a much less baffling and infuriating place.

Now you have to set out to try to determine who people are doing the confounded things that they are doing, whatever those might be. Here’s where the fun comes in. I have found that you can usually figure out the reasons for most behavior, even that of the most baffling of females, if you think about it hard enough. Once you understand why that person did what they did, a feeling of peace comes over you. The world is actually an intelligible place. Most people are more or less logical, as painful as it might be to admit that.

And there’s your blackpill.

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy, Psychology

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and  Discrepancies

 

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically.  It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 8X discrepancy remains. Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (and I believe it is a genetic tendency). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” seems to be quite difficult.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state. They advocate such extreme solutions  because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below.  The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother to write about these things. There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below.  I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” The rest of them, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that liberals use to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie. White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie.   
  •     Blacks commit 8X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime.
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and now replicated ~15 times.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true).
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of these studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people.

8 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Corrections, Crime, Discrimination, Education, Ethics, Hispanics, Intelligence, Law, Law enforcement, Left, Philosophy, Police Brutality, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

Is Political Correctness Valued More Than Factual Correctness in Quora?

Answered on Quora:

Absolutely. Most of the time my answers have been flagged as violations of “Be Nice, Be Respectful,” I was simply reporting things that were 100% factual, in my opinion. Or at least reasonable opinions that almost any intelligent, rational and unbiased person would realize are factual. Did you hear that?

Almost all of my warnings have been from posting facts! Inconvenient facts, yes, but facts nonetheless. You see PC is based on the idea that if the truth offends you, it’s not true. So all facts that are offensive to PC people, including a vast range of common knowledge, common sense and even science, are deemed racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic lies.

Apparently:

  • The truth is racist.
  • The truth is sexist.
  • The truth is homophobic.
  • The truth is transphobic.

Not only that, but PC people will try to destroy anyone who reports and inconvenient or unpleasant fact that violates the PC Commissars’ version of truth.

As far as philosophy goes, PC people’s versions of truth and falsehood are pretty interesting from a philosophical POV. I wonder how many famous philosophers would agree with the PC nation that:

  • Truth: That which does not offend me and is true
  • Falsehood: That which is not true or is true but offends me.

I would think almost all of the world’s most famous philosophers would reject that definition.

2 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Philosophy

As an Exceptionally/Profoundly Gifted Person (IQ 146+), What Are Your Thoughts on Derrida, Foucault, and Lacan?

Answered on Quora.

Thanks for the A2A. I am familiar with all three.

Lacan is completely full of it. Not only that, he was a fraud who ripped off his clients. He may have ripped off all of us with his nonsense.

Derrida is nonsensical too. He simply made no sense whatsoever. Apparently that is the idea.

Both men took modern philosophy off into postmodernism where nothing is true, so apparently nothing makes sense either. Most of their work is sheer nonsense or strings of incomprehensible or made-up words that sound important or intelligent but really are simply nonsensical.

Foucalt may be a bit more grounded, but I am not sure. I have not studied him enough. But I know some anti-postmodernists hate him and say he is full of crap.

I meet your intelligence qualifications, so it can’t be that I am too stupid to understand these charlatans. If I can’t understand them, I doubt if anyone can.

We need to get off the postmodernist nonsense train and back into the real world where things are supposed to be comprehensible and make sense.

6 Comments

Filed under Europe, France, Intelligence, Philosophy, Psychology, Regional

Defend Your People

An African immigrant attacks a Chinese beggar. It goes on for 10 seconds before a patriotic young Chinese man jumps in to defend his people.

Everyone, please, always defend your people. It’s the honorable thing to do. A people who will not defend themselves are doomed to destruction.

21 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asians, Back to Africa Candidates, Blacks, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Ethics, Immigration, Philosophy, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

Male Homosexuality and Lesbianism as “Syndromes”

 Jynxi: I’m glad you cleared that up because that was exactly my conclusion. That being said, how would you go about classifying homosexuality? Would it not be a type of BDD light?

Homosexuality is not a sin and it’s not chosen anyway. I am not much of a Christian, but it seems hard to figure out if it is a sin considering that God obviously made these people gay.

Homosexuality itself is not a mental disorder. Just because a man is turned on by men and not women or a woman is turned on by women and not men doesn’t mean that that man or woman is crazy. It’s not nuts or crazy to have a sexual preference for your own sex and not the opposite sex.

And it makes no sense to call the whole homosexual syndrome a mental illness because many gay men and possibly lesbians are extremely healthy psychologically. You can’t have mental disorders where the sufferers are very well-adjusted and mentally healthy. That goes against the definition of a disorder.

Nevertheless, both male homosexuality and lesbianism, while not being mental illnesses, still resemble them. In other words, homosexuality is not a mental illness, but it looks like one! This is because there is so much pathology that seems to go along inevitably with these orientations when you look at them as groups.

The PC claim is that all homosexual pathologies are due to discrimination. However, recent surveys have found high levels of all sorts of pathologies in both gays and lesbians even in places like Sweden and most recently in the Netherlands. Gays are more accepted there than anywhere on Earth, so the gays can’t use the discrimination excuse which they always use to handwave away all gay and lesbian pathology.

Male homosexuality and lesbianism on average cut a full 20 years off your lifespan. The most recent studies showing a 20 year lifespan reduction have come out of Sweden, Denmark and Canada. Gays also say that the 20 year reduced lifespan is due to discrimination, but this is hard to reckon with in places like Sweden and Denmark where there is little discrimination against gays. Gay men who die of non-HIV causes only live a few years longer than those who die of HIV, and lesbians who are not affected by HIV don’t live any longer than gay men.

The implication is that all of the pathologies and the reduced lifespan are simply inherent aspects of this homosexual syndrome when look at the groups as a whole. There is something inherent in homosexuality in many cases that causes you to be unhappy, have all sorts of problems and die young.

However, if you believe in Natural Law, homosexuality seems to be violation of Natural Law. Obviously nature wants men and women to pair off and make babies. When that gets messed up as in women raising children alone or homosexual couples raising children, all sorts of problems seem to develop. The children have quite a few more problems than those raised by a father and mother.

A household with a father and a mother continues to be the best for children. This doesn’t really make sense unless you think that possibly Nature wants it this way, or perhaps we have evolved to raise children this way. If the latter, we might not be adapted to raising children in other ways very well.

Homosexual relationships both gay and lesbian seem to run into all sorts of problems. First of all, they usually end up caricaturing heterosexual relationships with one playing the dominant and masculine man and another the submissive and feminine woman in both gay male and lesbian relationships. That even gays end up caricaturing the basic heterosexual pattern implies once again that this is either Natural Law or we have evolved that way (possibly “Natural Law” might mean nothing other than the way we have evolved).

Gay relationships seem almost inherently pathological. They do not seem to last long. 91% of even lesbians never have a relationship that lasts more than five years, and gay men are even worse. Hell, even I did better than that. Gay male couples are 4-5 X more likely to suffer from domestic violence than straight couples are. Lesbians beat each other up so often and so badly that their rates are off charts, worse than even gay men’s rates.

Lesbians often fall into what is called Lesbian Bed Death where they have sex once a month if that often. No one knows why this happens, but perhaps lesbian relationships lack the male “charge” that may be necessary to fire up female sexuality. Lesbians try to imitate the charge by having one woman play the male role, but maybe it doesn’t work.

Gay men typically have notoriously unstable relationships which are much more temporary even than those of lesbians. Gay male life often revolves around a never-ending swirl of temporary and often one-time or even anonymous relationships. A survey out of Australia in 2000 showed that many gay men were continuing to have sex with more than 100 men per year. And this is long after the wild promiscuity of the 1970’s that preceded the HIV epidemic calmed down to much lower levels in  the 1980’s. Even at this late date, gay men are very promiscuous.

All of this wild sex for some reason does not seem to make them happy and in fact it may make them unhappy. Many gay men seem to be caught in this never ending drug and promiscuous sex cycle in which they seem to be chasing an elusive happiness and fulfillment that they never seem to find.

Many gay men seem to be looking for a father figure. Gay men’s relationships with their fathers and male peers were typically quite poor, and it has been suggested that gay men are forever trying to fill the “father hole” that never got filled in them or are forever trying to find the male acceptance and brotherly love that they never got from their peers while growing up. Gay male culture revolves heavily around the notion of the “Daddy,” and many gay male relationships incorporate the “Daddy” archetype. A number of gay men have stated that a theme of their adult lives, particularly sexually, was a search, often wandering, painful, and yearning but ultimately fruitless, for the father relationship that they never had.

Neither gays nor lesbians seem very happy. Gay men have a 3X elevated rate of suicide even in the Netherlands, which is as gay-friendly as you can get. There seems to be something inherent in male homosexuality that causes this suicidality.

One can picture heterosexual relationships in the yin and yang figure. Take them apart and they float alone, missing their other half. Men and women only become completely whole in a heterosexual relationship where the male donates his masculine element to the woman which she incorporates into herself and the woman donates her female element into the male which he incorporates into himself. They are both now whole, locked together in that perfect fitting embrace, the key in the lock of the yin/yang emblem.

Look, I do not think that male homosexuality or lesbianism are lifestyles that gay men and lesbians choose to lead in most cases, although there are some women who seem to choose to be lesbians, and there are a few basically straight men who choose to live a gay lifestyle, but the numbers of the latter are very small.

By age 15, gay men cannot be changed to straight, and they cannot even be made somewhat more heterosexual or somewhat less homosexual. Male homosexuality is incurable, unfixable, or permanent, however you want to look at it.

In early onset cases, lesbianism appears to be quite permanent and incurable too. So almost all gay men and many lesbians are pretty much stuck being gay. 

Still the lifestyles that especially so many gay men in big cities seem to live seem to be very unhealthy both physically and psychologically. In many cases the way they live is simply not a good way to live your life.

I don’t hate gays and lesbians. You can’t hate people for what they can’t help. I wish for all of them the very same happiness and health that I want for myself in life, not 1% less.

Nevertheless, I worry that all of this pathology may simply be somehow inherent in the “syndromes” of male homosexuality and  lesbianism, possibly due to their violations of Natural Law or our evolution, and that these problems may never be fixed much.

And that is quite a sad thing to believe. 

2 Comments

Filed under Canada, Civil Rights, Culture, Death, Denmark, Discrimination, Europe, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Mental Illness, Netherlands, North America, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychopathology, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden

The Likable Homophobe: Are You One, and What Do You Tell People When You Choose Not to Spend Time with a Someone Because of Their Homosexuality?

Answered on Quora:

I believe that almost all straight men are homophobic on a certain level – and that level is that they hate homosexuality and especially the idea of doing it themselves. Dirty little secret – most straight men are completely straight in part because they think that engaging in homosexual acts is the worst thing on Earth, and this is why they don’t engage in them.

There is a problem when you say that engaging in homosexual acts is just fine. Now the question comes up, “Well, why don’t you do it, then?” And the ugly truth is that most straight men find that idea so horrific that they would rather die than do that. A number of straight men have told me that they would rather take a bullet than engage in a homosexual act. That’s how severe the revulsion is.

Now the question becomes if we think this type of sex is the worst thing on Earth, how can we accept it in other people? This is a bind, but many straight men solve the bind by saying that gay men cannot help being gay, so it’s therefore immoral to hate them. Others somehow say that it’s the worst thing on Earth for them to do it, but it’s ok if those gay guys want to do it.

As you can see, it is difficult for straight men to reconcile their extreme revulsion for gay sex with somehow managing to accept biological gay men for what they are.

The source of a lot of homophobia is simply this rooted in this very revulsion. This seems more common than religious objections from guys I have known.

And it is a problem once you say gay sex is fine. I assure that once a lot of straight men say there’s nothing wrong with gay sex (as we are supposed to think nowadays) that you are going to see a lot more opportunistic and recreational bisexuality among basically straight men. And my anecdotal evidence is that we are seeing just that right now.

It’s a bind. On the one hand, the revulsion causes a lot of homophobia, but on the other hand, once you say there’s nothing wrong with it, I assure you that a lot more guys will start doing it. There’s bad outcomes either way in my opinion.

The likable homophobe would be someone whose homophobia is simply limited to a desire not to associate or deal with gay men. If that’s the total extent of your homophobia, I don’t see the problem. Nobody has to associate or deal with anyone. Our associations are our personal choice and in a free society, everyone has a moral right to associate with whoever they wish.

In fact, I do not associate or even deal much with gay men myself. I don’t hate what they do if they can’t help it. On the other hand, I have had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I simply do not wish to deal with them anymore. Can someone tell me why this is wrong?

However, I have supported gay rights for decades and even endured accusations of being gay for supporting gay rights. To this day, I support a lot of gay political causes, and I am on the mailing list for gay political organizations. And I do participate in a lot of their campaigns.

In summary, if the total extent of your homophobia is not wishing to associate with gay men, I would say your homophobia is basically nothing and that level of mild homophobia indeed qualifies as a “likable homophobe.”

14 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Philosophy, Politics, Sex