George Michael Was Not Really Gay: He Was Actually a Strong Bisexual

Trash: GEORGE MICHAEL

A husky hairy-faced man high on crack and lurking in public toilets trying to get you to suck his penis.

I think effeminate gays are more palatable.

The police officer who arrested George Michael later tried to sue for “emotional damage” as a result of George high off his head on crack cocaine shoving his head into his crotch in a public toilet.

That is scary.

George Michael was not really gay. He was a very strong bisexual. He was very turned on by women his entire life. He was also very turned on by men. He was more gay-romantic than anything else. As a prepubertal boy, he was girl-crazy. Around the time of puberty, somehow he got very turned on by boys also. The high attraction to females never went away. But soon after puberty, he realized that he could only fall in love with a man.

He slept with quite a few beautiful women for a while there in early adulthood and he loved it. He told the women that he was into guys too, but after a while, it all just felt too dishonest and he felt like he was screwing the women over psychologically somehow, so he quit having sex with them. But he retained a high attraction to women his entire life. I would have liked to have interviewed the guy as I have a big interest in sexual orientation stuff. The commenter above seems to imply that Michael was rather masculine for a gay men, which makes sense to me. The more into a women a gay man is, the more masculine he acts. The more exclusively gay he is, the more effeminate he acts.

My scale:

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual
90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual
80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual
70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual
60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual
50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual
40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual
30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual
20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual
10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual
0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual

I haven’t the faintest idea where he would be on this chart. I doubt if he was more turned on by women than he was by men. I would say anywhere from a 30-70 to a 50-50. Gay leaning strong bisexuals (30-70 to 40-60’s make up fully 1/3 of all men who lean gay, so it appears there are quite a few men like that. I think maybe 2% of the male population is a gay leaning strong bisexual. It’s an interesting group of men and I would like to see more work done on them. Pure bisexual men are quite rare – only 1% of the male population is this way. Almost all men with a bisexual orientation at all lean one way or the other, typically strongly in that direction. Men either lean heavily gay or lean heavily gay; they do not seem to do the middle ground  stuff very well. Why this is is unknown.

 

12 Comments

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

Romantic Orientation: An Unknown Factor in Sexual Orientation

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual
90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual
80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual
70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual
60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual
50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual
40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual
30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual
20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual
10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual
0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual

That is my very own sexual orientation scale. I use it a lot in my counseling practice. What is odd is that everyone seems to like it a lot, and almost everyone gives me an almost immediate answer to where they are on the chart. This implies that most people know their sexual orientation at least deep down inside and few people are legitimately going round and round about their sexual orientation.

In my practice the only people I met who were going round and round about their sexual orientation were mentally ill. It doesn’t seem to be something normal people do. I think most adults know their orientation very well, but quite a few simply cannot admit it to themselves. Hence you see formerly married men “discovering they are gay” at age 45. They are not discovering a damn thing. They’ve known all along. The only  thing that changed was they stopped lying to themselves.

I like this better than the Kinsey Scale.

We really need another scale for romantic orientation.

I have known some lesbians who identified as 25-75 but identified as lesbian because they said that while men might be fun for sex, they could only fall in love with a woman. So it looks like self-labeling for sexual orientation can be based as much on romantic attraction as sexual attraction.

I have known women who had sex with both men and women but identified as straight as they only had relationships with men. They told me that relationships with women were straight up insanity time.

In fact, a number of bisexual women have confided in me that they did not like relationships with women because they were too nutty, which is something we men have been saying forever now. They told me that relationships with men were much more stable.

Woman = chaos + drama is how the equation works. All men have woman troubles. If you have a woman, you have woman troubles, period. Maybe you don’t if she’s mute, but even then she probably is capable of murderously dirty looks. Mute women have the advantage of knowing when to shut up and plus they can never give you the silent treatment. I think more men should look into relationships with mute women. It sounds like a neglected demographic. Generally the man is a stabilizing influence to the drama + chaos and women from partriarchal cultures are encultured or even terrorized into acting sane and decent most of the time.

Now you have two humans. One is drama + chaos and the other is drama + chaos. Ok, what do you think the result of that is? A Type 3 emotional hurricane I would say.

3 Comments

Filed under Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Women

Resolved: Young Boys are Straight-Up Evil

RL: Another question answered in Quora. The Cultural Left BS is that gay men are no more likely to be effeminate than straight men…

…Think about that. The boy on the hoppityhop was the “queer.” You know what queer means. The job of all of the other boys was to basically destroy the queer riding the ball and throw him of the ball. Whoever was the queer got smeared. Everyone tried to destroy you and throw you off the ball. What’s the message here? Queers get smeared. Queers get attacked and destroyed. If you are a Queer, all of the other boys will attack you with violence. It’s pretty obvious the message that gets internalized with such games.

Jason Y: Only assholes play that game. They don’t represent most boys. They’re just the alpha jocks of the group, who by the way, are big pussies when they have to encounter real men who can easily beat them up. After that, of course, they cry like little girls, and child abuse charges are brought up. 😆

Note these fuckers don’t change as they go into upper-grade school and college either. They make life hell for decent people who treat others fairly and certainly they are an enemy to the socialism that you speak of.

RL: It was deliriously fun to beat up this boy who cried all of the time. In case you think I am a sociopath, many other boys joined in, and most were quite normal, not the bad bullies at all. Just regular, violent boys. Of course, the more we beat him up, the more he cried, so it was sort of dumb to hit him, but 10 year old boys don’t think like that.

Jason Y: Only assholes beat up crying boys, but yes, most boys don’t approve of crying though they may not admit it. I don’t really think it’s good behavior, not even for girls. It’s just really weak.

RL: There are indeed some effeminate straight men, but mostly they only act effeminate some of the time and not all the time. I would estimate that no more than 1% of straight men are obviously effeminate. The number of very wimpy straight men must also be small. Perhaps 1–2%.

Jason Y: Well, what about skinny guys or midgets? Note they’re being attacked for being weak and queer, just cause they look the part. Well, not everyone is doing that, but asshole 7-12 year old boys and other alphas are.

I guess according to you all normal young boys are assholes.

I got some news for you. None of my friends were macho jock assholes. I wasn’t, and none of my friends were either. We were actually the direct opposite of macho jock assholes, about as far as you could get from that behavior. We were the most normal boys you ever met. We were not even all that popular. I mean we were sort of popular, but we were in the In Crowd. And we were not hypermasculine or macho either. Some of us were getting called pussies ourselves. I doubt if they were particularly conservative either. We were not homophobic macho jocks! Homophobia is normal for all young boys!

You say only assholes beat up crying boys. Let me tell you something. Everyone beat that guy up. Everyone. Both of my brothers beat him up. One was in second grade, and the other wasn’t even in kindergarten. Even my four year old brother helped beat that guy up. He really loved it too. He got into it big time. There really was not anyone who did not beat that guy up, I think because it was so much fun. And almost all of the guys beating him up were simply regular, normal boys, not assholes or bullies or jocks or anything. Just run of the mill boys.

Skinny guys are typically not effeminate. I can think of a Hell of a lot of skinny guys I have known in my life, and I am having a hard time thinking of one effeminate or even very wimpy skinny boy. I have never known or met any midgets. I had a good Net friend once who was a “little person” as he called it, and everyone loved him and left him alone. Being skinny or a little person is not the same thing as acting effeminate.

The guys you are talking about are hypermasculine homophobic psychos. When we were that age, we never called any skinny boys fags or beat them up. Some of us were pretty skinny ourselves. Only the crying boy got his ass beat. There were some skinny but very faggoty effeminate boys named the Hunts. We called them the Cunts, and we used to torment them and call them fags. They never rose to the bait though so we never hit them. I have to admit that that was pretty fun too. We really loved tormenting those boys because their faggoty behavior was so ridiculous. They both acted like Liberace + Paul Lind. Our attitude was that that behavior was simply outrageous and offensive and that’s why they got teased.

The way I see it is boys are simply diabolical. We all tortured insects and we even had Nazi style mass killing machine experiments for some common garden pests that were eating the crops in our garden. We experimented on all sorts of ways to kill snails and pillbugs. We had “bullfights” with tomato worms. We would put them in the “bullring” and then throw nails at them. Every time we threw a nail we yelled “Picadors!” which you gotta admit, is pretty funny. I believe we also set those things on fire. We burned ants with magnifying glasses.

We or at least I used to conduct science experiments on some bugs. The bugs were not harmed. I would pain the shell of a snail blue and then release it. A few days later I would go looking for it. I found that a damn snail could travel awful far in only a day or two. Some of them went all the way from the backyard to the front yard in only a day or two. I found this fascinating.

We stole stuff from the workmen building the new houses in back. We would go back there at night and steal whole boxes of nails, tools, you name it. It was actually pretty fun to steal stuff from them. It was quite scary and exciting. We used to go fishing at this place called “The Smelt Place.” We could catch up to 100 smelt in a day at this place.

Mostly we just threw them back but after a while, we were catching so many of them that we started murdering them. We would leave them on our lines after we caught them and then cast the line with the fish on it over onto some nearby rocks. Then we would yell, “Acapulco Cliff Divers!” which was a funny thing to say, I have to admit. Then we would reel the poor things back in over the rocks. The fish  would come back in battered but still alive. A few casts and it was threw. I think we just threw the dead fish in the estuary. One friend took a live smelt and tied it to a rope at the end of his bike and dragged it aways. He was trying to see how far he could drag it before it died. We thought this was hysterically funny.

Thank God we never killed or even harmed amphibians, reptiles, birds or God forbid mammals. Killing insects is almost normal, and killing fish is not that pathological, but as it escalates, the behavior starts getting more alarming.

We we were the best of friends, but a lot of us fought constantly. My brothers and I were best friends but we fought and beat each other up all the time. We also broke up into teams and had “Berry Wars” or “Dirt Clod Wars.” We used hard green small fruit of some tree as berries. We would arm ourselves with these small objects and then throw them at each other. It could hurt to get hit with those and those wars often turned quite violent. It was not uncommon for them to end with us screaming  that we were going to kill each other.

The next day it was all good and everything was normal. I remember once we flew up to see my relatives and just before the plane back, we got into a horrific berry war with my cousins. As we were being hauled into the car to the airport, I remember my brothers and I screaming at my cousins that we were going to murder each other. My mother found this quite alarming. Next time we went up to see them, everything was fine.

I simply think that young boys are wicked. They are often mean and they can be quite sadistic. Sadism seems to be a normal part of boyhood. They love violence, they love to tease and torment other boys to provoke a violent response in order to have an excuse to beat up the guy you teased. We were always provoking each other into violence. We all had very mean nicknames for each other. If you called the person by their mean nickname they would usually try to assault you. So of course we called each other by these mean nicknames all the time in order to provoke a violent response to we could respond by beating them up.

My girl cousins came and lived with us for a while. I learned all about females then and later when we became best friends, but while they were living with us, it was nonstop warfare. We were pre-pubertal, so it generally took the form of girls versus boys, which was a real blast of course because we thought, no wait we knew, that we were better than girls.

I think boys are just normally evil a lot of the time. Most of them just age out of it and turn into quite normal adolescent and adults, but some of them go way too far and end up being antisocial or worse adults. I have also observed that little girls can be quite evil too, but the violence is more verbal than physical. They seem to delight in being mean to other girls, forming cliques, excluding others, sadistically making other girls cry, etc. Girls seem to be pretty sadistic around that age too. Most of them seem to grow out of their childhood evil too. This antisocial or evil behavior seems to be a normal developmental stage in both genders, but I do not understand why that would be.

7 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Girls, Man World, Psychology

Are Straight Men as Likely to Have an Effeminate Affect as Gay Men?

Another question answered in Quora. The Cultural Left BS is that gay men are no more likely to be effeminate than straight men. It’s a lie. A flat out lie. Why they say this, I have no idea. I suppose they think associating effeminacy with gay men will lead to homophobia and bigotry. But that’s not a good reason to lie.  This is just one more thing the crazy Gay Lobby or Gay Identity Politics faction of the Cultural Left lies about, and this faction tells many a lie.

I would recommend Chris’ response below. It’s not PC but it’s correct. Gay men are vastly more likely to be effeminate than straight men. There’s no contest.

Chris:

Straight men, as a group, are far more likely to fear being considered effeminate if they express perfectly normal variations in gender expression.

They are heavily socialized to this view.

Exactly. Straight men are extremely paranoid of being considered gay. Which ones? Well, just about every straight man I ever met? They will go to incredible extremes so as not to be perceived as gay. This is the main reason for the exaggerated hypermasculine behavior you see in so many straight men. To me, one reason for hypermasculine behavior is a way of screaming at the world: “I’m not a faggot!” The more hypermasculine they are, the louder they are making that statement.

Considering the straight men I have known, one of the worst possible insults would be to tell them that they act or you thought they were gay. Just imagining the straight men I have known and imagining me implying that they act gay, I can see almost every single one of them getting angry about that. Some might get dangerously angry. It’s a real slap in the face. I generally never imply that about any straight man because I don’t want to get hit or killed. To me that’s a good way to get punched. In some places, the person might even try to kill you. It’s not worth it.

I’m not sure why straight men do not want to be perceived as gay but they just do. Obviously it’s all wrapped up in masculinity but there is more to it than that. For one thing, to be a straight man perceived as gay is an endless headache in straight society both with women and men. And don’t even bring up girlfriends. Straight society simply does not accept straight men who are perceived as gay in any way. They’re not ok with it. Period. It’s just one never ending pain in the ass. The best way to not have your life weirded out by this situation is to act as hypermasculine as possible. Problem solved.

Another reason is that if you act hypermasculine, you can often can along better with other straight men. It’s easier to bond with them if they don’t think you’re a pussy. And bonding with straight men is quite difficult if they suspect that you are gay. A close friendship is nearly impossible. Being respected as a fellow masculine man earns massive points in straight society.

One more thing. It sounds nuts, but there is no down side to hypermasculinity. I don’t really act that way as am a bit of a pure androgyne (extremely strong masculine side by also a strong feminine side).

But sometimes I get a complex where I worry about my behavior and I try to compensate by angrily acting in what to me is an absurdly exaggerated masculine way. This behavior seems so odd to me that I am amazed that everyone is not laughing in my face when I act this way. But bizarrely, no one will laugh at you. No one will ever look at you twice. And a whole lot of men who were not friendly to you before show a strange new respect for you. They signal to you, nodding their heads or giving thumbs up. They are saying you are one of us, the hypermasculine guys, oh man do I respect that, Hell yeah.

A lot of these men will be older White men, but others will be “redneck” working class young White men. No one is going to give you any problems for this behavior. Everything is going to go smoothly with every man you meet. Considering that hypermasculine behavior smooths the way so much in straight society, why should we be surprised if men do it.

Another thing is women. Women are more attracted to hypermasculine behavior than you might think and it’s not uncommon that it actually turns them on mentally or physically. Where I live, the women are all Hispanics and they never look at me twice. When I go into hypermasculine caricature mode is the only time they look at me with sexual interest.

There are other reasons too. For instance, if you are straight, the more effeminate you act, the more like gay and bisexual men are going to come after you sexually. So hypermasculine behavior is surely seen as a way of warding off gay advances. I would say that it works pretty well too.

One of the responses to Chris’ answer says that all males have these effeminate behaviors, but the straight men just had it beaten out of them. That’s sad but true. The socialization of straight boys is quite a brutal affair and a lot never really make it out without scars. It’s like Bootcamp for Manhood. Boyhood is training and socializing period for becoming a man. Little boys are quite sissy, sensitive and wimpy. They break into tears a lot. As you get older as a boy, you learn pretty quickly that boys who cry get hit.

There was a boy in 5th grade named DN. He was called “Fig” for short as a first name for reasons I won’t go into. “Fig” got turned into “Fag” awful fast. He was an extremely sensitive boy who always looked like he was going to cry. Worse, he had the habit of always busting out in tears, often at school. My memory is of incidents where people would say, “Look! DN is crying! Beat him up!” Then I would rush over with about twenty other boys to kick DN’s ass.

It was deliriously fun to beat up this boy who cried all of the time. In case you think I am a sociopath, many other boys joined in, and most were quite normal, not the bad bullies at all. Just regular, violent boys. Of course, the more we beat him up, the more he cried, so it was sort of dumb to hit him, but 10 year old boys don’t think like that.

Why did we beat him up? We beat up for crying, mostly crying for no reason, also just for crying way too much. I never thought twice about why we attacked him instantaneously for crying. It was almost a primal thing. The message is pretty clear, right? You cry and you’re going to get your ass kicked. Man up. Boys don’t cry. A man never cries. Get it?

I am actually afraid to cry nowadays because I honestly think someone is going to hit me because I associate tears with fists. When we were boys, we played a lot of games. One of them was called Kill the Man on the Hoppityhop. It’s a violent game, but boyhood for straight boys is quite a violent affair. You either make it through or you don’t. Boot camp. This game involved riding in a gigantic rubber ball with a handle that you could actually travel along on by bouncing it up and down. You could bounce your way all across a yard on that thing.

In the game, one boy would ride the hoopityhop while all of the other boys would try to throw him off. The boy riding the hoppityhop had to stay on the ball and at the same time fend off all of the attackers. The attackers were pretty violent about throwing you off the ball. Another name for Kill the Man on the Hoppityhop was Smear the Queer.

Think about that. The boy on the hoppityhop was the “queer.” You know what queer means. The job of all of the other boys was to basically destroy the queer riding the ball and throw him of the ball. Whoever was the queer got smeared. Everyone tried to destroy you and throw you off the ball. What’s the message here? Queers get smeared. Queers get attacked and destroyed. If you are a Queer, all of the other boys will attack you with violence. It’s pretty obvious the message that gets internalized with such games.

And that was not the only homophobic of femininephobic game that was played in my youth. It was only one of many.

Are you speaking of effeminate behavior or feminine behavior? Because they are very different. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Feminine is very different. A feminine man might be soft, sensitive, pretty, like to cook, gentle, passive, quiet, like to read or write, and maybe do some other stereotypically feminine stuff. He’s just in touch with his feminine side. e 73% – 3%. That is a pretty extreme difference.

I would estimate that 70–75% of gay men are obviously effeminate or very wimpy in some way or another. The figure may even be higher. I have only encountered two stereotypically hypermasculine gay men in my life. Both were on Youtube videos.

There are indeed some effeminate straight men, but mostly they only act effeminate some of the time and not all the time. I would estimate that no more than 1% of straight men are obviously effeminate. The number of very wimpy straight men must also be small. Perhaps 1–2%.

So the figures are like 73% – 3%. That’s a pretty extreme variation.

110 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Scum, Sex

Repost: How Common Is Sex among Siblings among Teenagers and Young Adults?

One of the more shocking posts to have appeared on this site is this post about incest among siblings. It is getting reposted around a lot these days, so I thought I would repost it for those of you who might have missed it the first time. I honestly think this behavior is much more common than realized. I also think that in most cases is not pathological, as it is quite consensual, and even where it is abusive, I would recommend therapy instead of incarceration for the abuser, typically a teenage boy molesting his sister or female cousins. 

Sammy writes:

“Brothers and sisters fuck quite a bit, as teenagers…”

Really? Brothers and sisters who grew up together from day one in the same household? How do you know of this? I’ve heard of it happening between step brothers and sisters, but never heard of it happening between actual “blood” brothers and sisters who both share the same parents and grew up in the same household. Percentage-wise, how often would you say the latter happens (and what are you basing this on)?

Unfortunately a lot of this falls under the category of “child molestation,” but it usually isn’t. A lot of teenage boys have sex with their vulnerable younger sisters. With the sisters, it is often more or less consensual. Childhood sex play often involves brothers, sisters, cousins, and their friends. The age ranges of childhood sex play can range from six all the way up to 15 for both sexes, and it is possible that all ages can be involved at the same time. For instance, scenes, often with brothers, sisters and cousins, can occur with groups where the age ranges from 8 all the way up to 15 and can include both homosexual (often lesbian) and heterosexual conduct.

Not only do brothers and sisters have sexual experiences particularly in adolescence, but sisters have a lot more sex with each other than you could possibly imagine. Young teenage sisters around the ages of 13-15 who are just discovering the joys of masturbation (as almost all teenage girls are nowadays at a very early age, typically 13) have lesbian sex with each other, mutually masturbate each other, etc. I would say that maybe 5-10% of sisters in this age group engage in this activity. All of the cases I saw involved girls with a predominantly heterosexual orientation. So most sisters who are doing this are not lesbians. Instead they are straight or possibly bisexual.

I discovered a lot of this activity when looking through forums where younger teenage girls were discussing sexual issues such as onset of first pubic hair and sexarche, onset and frequency of masturbation, and some other sexual things. It is from these forums that I derive my 5-10% figure because ~5-10% of the girls on the forums admitted to having sex with their sisters. The age range for this sister-sister sex was 13-15.

Sources: I work as a counselor, and I hear stories of childhood sex play from clients constantly.

Teenage boys having sex with their younger sisters is extremely common as we can see from recent famous cases. It is typically brushed under the carpet, as it possibly ought to be.

Arrest in these circumstances is just wrong, and in California, other than rape, all sex between juveniles of all ages is legal. You simply cannot arrest two kids for doing consensual sexual things with each other. If there is a serious age discrepancy with a teenager (usually a boy and typically a brother) doing sexual things with a young child (usually a girl and typically a sister), the teenager must be told that this is unacceptable and must stop, and they should have to undergo counseling.

Generally this sort of thing is handled by Social Services, social workers and therapists in California and not law enforcement, which is how it ought to be. In extreme cases of teenage boys serially molesting young girls, they may be remanded to the juvenile justice system, but they may not be tried in the adult system. At any rate, clinically this behavior means little as according to the DSM, pedophilia cannot be diagnosed in people age 16 or younger.

There are videos on the Internet of brothers having sex with their sisters or at least of people claiming to be brothers having sex with sisters. I have no idea how old they were, but they appeared to be older teenagers. I felt that they were genuine.

To give you an example of how common this activity can be at least in certain circumstances, in Egypt, due to a housing crisis, young people are not able to move out of the parental home, so young adults of the same family are often living under the same roof. Not only that, but living conditions are so overcrowded that these late teens and  young adults are often sleeping in close quarters in living rooms, etc.

A recent article in the US press noted that there is an extremely high level of sexual activity among brothers and sisters occurring in urban Egypt in these circumstances. The brothers and sisters engaging in this activity were ~16-23. Egyptian society didn’t seem to be interested in doing anything about it. I assume that this behavior was either denied, brushed under the carpet or dealt with in the family, probably by silence and willful ignorance. Law enforcement was not getting involved.

6 Comments

Filed under Africa, Crime, Egypt, Heterosexuality, Incest, Law, Law enforcement, North Africa, Pedophilia, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Regional, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Can Gay Men Still Be Attracted to Women in Some Sort of Way?

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

The Cultural Left regularly states as one of its theorems that most if not all gay men get turned on by females on a regular basis. Why the Cultural Left wants to insist on this nonsense, I have no idea.

In general, the Cultural Left hates “generalizations.” They don’t want any laws or rules about anything. Or corollaries or theorems. Or well-supported conclusions. It’s scientific nihilism all the way.

We cannot “generalize” (which means form a conclusion by testing a hypothesis against the collected data) about anything on Earth. Nothing means anything. Or everything means nothing. Or nothing means everything. Or everything means everything. Or everything means anything. Or something. Or something. Or whatever. Or mumbo jumbo. Or bullshit.

Oh, and no labels! The Cultural Left hates labels because labels imply definitions and in the wild and woolly bonkers world of the insipid Cultural Left, definitions are generalizations, and generalized conclusions are bigotry. All generalizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, looksist, speciesist or just some generalized form of oppression by the dominant paradigm of whatever the beaten down subaltern of the day is.

If you notice, the asinine scientific nihilism of the Cultural Left is straight out of the social sciences, where notoriously nothing can ever be proven except whatever silly PC theory the social scientist wants to prove, typically with no evidence, while the obvious common sense wisdom of ages is all “scientifically disproven” by a bunch of fake social science studies and is at any rate waved away as racism, sexism, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, homophobia, transphobia or whatever whatever bla bla. Oppression Olympics.

My answer to this question on Quora:

Newsflash: Gay men don’t get turned on by women! Isn’t that shocking?
Most of the gay men posting below are simply lying. Endless studies in the lab have shown that the typical gay men reacts in the following way:

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

In fact, this is one of the most robust findings in social science! They’ve tested it so many times that no one wants to test it anymore because everyone knows how it comes out.

To put it another way, how many straight men are turned on by men? Most of them are not, and even those that are have quite low levels of attraction to men.
Hard bisexual men are not common. Most men lean hard one way or the other. Most bisexual men lean straight and usually hard straight. A much smaller percentage of bisexual men lean gay ,and many of those lean hard gay. Fully 87% of men with a bisexual orientation in the lab lean straight. The other 13% lean gay and those vary 2/3 leaning hard gay and 1/3 being significantly bisexual.

I have not the faintest idea why all these gay men below are falling all over themselves to lie that they get hard for women on any regular basis.

Is there some sort of shame in not being turned on by women? So you’re not turned on by women? So what? Or as I would say, lucky you, now you don’t have to be driven insane by them like we are!

If you asked a group of straight men on here if we ever get turned on by men, would they be falling all over each other to deliriously confess how they regularly get hard for Brad Pitt? These gay men trying to desperately to prove that they get hard for women strike me as self-haters. The implication being that a man who cannot get turned on by women is defective somehow. Sad.

I work as a psychological counselor. In the course of my counseling, I have many people who come in with problems that involve sexuality in some way. In these cases, I do a sexual orientation assessment of my male clients. Contrary to the nonsense you are reading below about “don’t believe in labels,” the truth is that labels are completely appropriate for men when it comes to sexual orientation.

That is because by no later than age 15, it has been proven in the lab that male sexual orientation is completely fixed. Not only can gay men not be turned straight (as proven endlessly in the lab), but, even more pessimistically than that, gay men cannot even be moved anywhere towards straight on the orientation scale. A 0-100 gay man cannot even become 10-90. A 20-80 gay man cannot become even a 30-70.

There is no data on whether straight men can turn gay, but if it works one way, it must work the other. In fact, there is one intriguing case in the literature of a miserable and hopelessly heterosexual male college student who hated women and desperately wanted to be gay. He spent most of his time hanging around gay men trying to turn gay. He told the clinician that he had tried everything he could think of to turn gay, and nothing had worked.

We men are simply up the creek as far as our orientation goes. We are whatever we got wired up to be, and that’s that.

The sexual orientation assessment simply assesses what the man was turned on by as a child and then up until age 15, as I don’t care what happened after that, as nothing could have happened anyway. All gay men told me that they were strongly attracted to males from puberty on, and some told me that they were into males even as early as childhood. Most of them reported no attraction to females during childhood, puberty and adolescence.

So far, all of my gay male clients have told me that in general:

  • They rarely look at women and check them out sexually, in most cases never do so. They’re checking out the guys, all guys, all the time.
  • Even more importantly, they never fantasize about sex with women. Like never, ever. All men, all the time.
  • Perhaps most importantly of all, they never think about women when they masturbate. Not even once, ever. It’s all men, all the time.

I have not yet had one gay man in my practice who had any significant attraction to women. Now that’s anecdotal, not scientific, but it ought to tell you something.

Some of the men above who showed no significant reaction to women had identified as 25-75 bisexuals to me on my scale, which is reasonably bisexual. A 25-75 man is maximally attracted to males and attracted to females at only half that rate. However, my 25-75’s practically speaking had no real attraction to women at all. So you see gay men often identify themselves as much more bisexual than they are.

Furthermore, in interviews with women married to closeted gay men, the wives say that their husbands displayed no interest at all in their bodies, even when they were naked. The husbands were often fascinated with male bodies, some claiming to be sports fans and collecting bodybuilder or other magazines that showcase jacked handsome men. They report that their husbands showed a particular aversion to cunnilingus.

The husbands often preferred sex from the rear position, and some liked anal sex a bit too much, if you catch my drift. Others reported that the husband showed little or no interest in sex. Reports of longterm impotence among closeted gay husbands are common. Girlfriends have told me that they have disrobed partially or fully in front of gay or suspected gay men, and the gay men did not look at them for one second and even acted like nothing in the room had changed!

This has actually been born out in the lab, as until recently all studies of so called “bisexual” men found that they tested in the lab exactly the same way as gay men:

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

The researchers concluded that “bisexual” men were simply gay men who cannot accept being gay due to stigma or prejudice, so they identify as bisexual because that is more acceptable to society.

This scenario continues to this day, as males in their late teens on through their 20’s identify at fairly high rates as “bisexual.” A common scenario is young men in their 20’s identifying as “bisexual” while they have wives or girlfriends. Yet these men spend most of their free time in gay bars and clubs. If you follow these men to age 30, you will find out that nearly of them have come fully out as gay by then. It simply took them all through their 20’s to accept that they were gay. Sad.

However a study was recently reported where researchers found a group of “bisexual” men who were actually bisexual in that they reacted significantly to both men and women in the lab. So it appears that they do exist. However, pure bisexual men or 50-50’s seem to be quite rare. Surveys show that only 1% of men can be classified this way.

Men are leaners. We either lean straight or we lean gay, often pretty hard one way or the other. This is even true of bisexual men. I do not know why this is, but that is what the research shows us.

2 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Ridiculousness, Science, Scum, Sex

Only White People Have Blue Eyes

blue-eyes-01

I guess all these people must be White then. But…but…wait a minute…um….uh….erm…duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Only Europeans have blue eyes only Europeans are White hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..

25 Comments

Filed under Afghans, Anthropology, Central Asians, East Indians, Europeans, Genetics, Humor, Iranians, Near Easterners, Pakistanis, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, South Asians, Whites

Realist Left Replies to Robert Lindsay

Originally from my own site, then a response by Realist Left here on the Alt Left page on Facebook which is reprinted below, then Lord Keynes’ response below that, the latter two of which are reprinted below in this piece. 

Robert Lindsay has an interesting post here on the Alt Left.

Realist Left (whose Twitter account is here) posted an excellent reply to this on the Alternative Left Facebook page, especially on the question of Marxism/Communism in the Alt Left:

A not-so-brief reply to Robert Lindsay with regards to the role of Communists, Anarchists, Marxists, the ‘Left Wing of the Alt-Right’, conservatives, etc. within the ‘Realist Left’ and ‘Alt Left’ in general (to the extent that we and I are a part of it).

I agree and yet also respectfully disagree.

To me, the anti-Regressive Left, anti-SJW, anti-post-structuralism/PoMo, etc. in many ways is the bait. People are sick of it from across the board, and if that means that Libertarians (cultural or ideological), populist-conservatives, moderates, or even the Left Wing of the Alt Right get attracted to it, all the better for us because that gives us a platform to listen to our economic views, which in popular discourse have been completely neglected. Ultimately though, our ‘base’ will be ‘liberal’, ‘Center-Left’, and the Non-Marxist ‘Left’.

In my experience, Communists, Anarchists, modern Marxists, etc. are a lot more trouble than they are worth. They’re tiny, and yet they’re incredibly divisive, prone to conflict and moreover give off a terrible message to anyone else given their cataclysmic human rights and economic failures.

We (or I at least) don’t want them around or to be influential, or to be the ones holding up the microphone for our groups (or at least mine). I especially don’t want them in any position of power or influence within our groups. They’re welcome to join, listen in. There’s even some room for Marxian analysis here or there when it’s interesting (and especially when it comes from those who are the most interesting and prescient, i.e. Kalecki, Baran & Sweezy). But I don’t want to hear about ‘bourgeoisie’, neo-imperialism, Labor Theory of Value or any other buzz-words and simplistic forms of analysis.

It doesn’t matter too much anyways, since most Marxists/Commies/Anarchists are themselves Regressives as well. So when the opportunity comes around to distance ourselves from Communists/Marxists/Anarchists, I’ll gladly do so. Castro is terrible; Stalin is far worse. The theory concerning the Falling Rate of Profit is wrong, and no, the Revolution is not coming.

Clearly, I do not put Ryan England/Agent Commie in this group. He, unlike many Marxists, has actually read Capital and articulates its good points. And of course he’s not really a Marxist/Commie as we all know.

Same thing goes for the ‘Left Wing of the Alt Right’ – you’re welcome to hang around, bash Regressive Leftists, et al, but I don’t want to hear about proactive White Identity politics, minority bashing, Jooish Conspiracy, etc. There is NO place for that here. Period.

I DO want more conservatives to read things like the Realist Left / Alternative Left or at least a certain type of them. I will always be against the Religious Right (of which the Reg-Left seems like the new moral puritans), against neoconservative hawkery, and I will of course always be against the ‘neoliberalism’ or worse, libertarianism and corporatism that’s found within modern ‘Conservative’ movements.

But you have to realize, ‘Conservatism’ is a VERY malleable concept. 150-200 years ago, Conservatism was busy trying to keep the last vestiges of feudalism, monarchy and agrarianism alive and even included protectionism and industrial policies. 40-60 years ago, we had ‘Tory Keynesianism’ and Nixon’s ‘We are all Keynesian now’. I’d like Conservatism to go back to being more sensible on economic policy and perhaps better on foreign policy too as they were. They may be more socially conservative or religious than we are, but that’s okay. Conservatism will always be around, so let’s try to make the best of it, instead of ceding it to the worst forces possible.

One extremely important thing is we absolutely cannot become another mirror image of ourself. We cannot become the Alt Right to the Regressive Left. We cannot become the Communists to the Fascists. We’re basically somewhere between the center and left, and we’re non-dogmatic about what the ‘truth’ is; rather we’d prefer to intellectually be in pursuit of the ‘truth’. Let’s not become another religion or ideology as has befallen so many of the others (Marxism, Intersectionality Feminism, Libertarianism, Neoliberalism, Alt-Right and Fascism).

– Realist Left, comment here.

Lord Keynes responds below:

Yes, this more or less nails it.

In my experience, a lot of Communists/Marxists and Anarchists are already utterly indoctrinated in Cultural Leftism and SJWism and so are doubly wrong – both on their cult-like Marxist ideology and Regressive Leftism.

There is something of value in Marx’s economic thought, as I have pointed out here, but you can strip out the insightful points and reject Marxism as a political ideology.

My own final thought in this is: we need to *reclaim* the Center. The political Center – at the moment – isn’t much to boast about. It’s mainly neoliberalism and Cultural Leftism-Lite.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Religion, US Politics, Vanity

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe By Robert Lindsay

This is from one of my papers on Academia. It is getting linked around all over the place right now, so I thought you folks might want to take a look at it if you have not done so already. Pretty interesting paper documents an 8-13.5 rise in the 2nd generation of immigrants coming from the less developed world to the West, in this case to Europe. The usual hereditarian rejoinders to this argument are dealt with.

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe

By Robert Lindsay

From an article by Philippe Rushton, hereditarian, a revelation about yet another instance of skyrocketing IQ increases in the second generation born in the West after migrating from the less developed areas.

Previously, we noted that the children Jamaican immigrants to the UK (IQ = 71) have IQ’s of 85-86, typically within a single generation. That is a gain of 14.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. Hereditarians have offered many rationales for this. The usual one is that the Jamaican immigrants were already very bright anyway (as we will see with Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands, this is not true).

Another is that Jamaicans in the UK are very heavily bred in with Whites to the point where they may be only 1/2 White. This is not true – UK Jamaicans are only 12% White (Jamaicans in Jamaica are 9% White).

The children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants to the UK (IQ = 81.5) have IQ’s ranging from 92 (Rushton) to 96 (a figure I prefer). Call it 94. This is a gain of 12.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. The counter-argument here once again is that this group is self-selected.

Taken together, the children of Jamaican and East Indian immigrants see rises of 13.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. It is true that beyond the initial jump, we are not seeing more rises.

However, a strong initial jump is perfectly consonant with being raised in an area with a higher standard of living. Higher standards of living seem to be somehow translating into long-term rises in IQ. The mechanisms can be debated.

Education, a massively stimulating environment (computers, cell phones, TV, movies), proper nutrition, good medical care, and myriad other things have been suggested, but the mechanisms for the rises are still somewhat mysterious.

Now, via Rushton, we have yet more evidence of a Flynn Effect in immigrants to the West. First generation Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands had IQ’s of 81. This is low. The Moroccan norm IQ is 84, and the Turkish norm IQ is 90. So, contrary to the argument that only the very brightest immigrants are going to the West, it seems instead that the less bright immigrants are arriving instead.

The second generation has IQ’s of 89. 89 is around the Turkish average, but it is 5 points above the Moroccan average of 84. Both the Turkish and the Moroccan figures also shows a Flynn gain of 8 points between generations. Rushton tries to explain this away somehow, but he doesn’t do a good job of it.

The evidence for massive IQ gains in second-generation immigrants to the West is now becoming overwhelming, and it is going to be harder and harder for hereditarians to explain away.

Comparison of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants to the West and the resulting Flynn Effect gains, apparently solely by being born and raised in the West. The common factor behind rising IQ’s in the West may be related to rising standards of living.

                   1st   2nd   Gain

UK Jamaicans       71    85.5  14.5
UK East Indians    81.5  94    12.5
ND Moroccans/Turks 81    88     7

Average            78    89    11.5

8 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Britain, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Flynn Effect, Immigration, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Moroccans, Netherlands, North Africans, Pakistanis, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asians, Turks

Filipino NPA Guerrillas in an Alliance with Duterte

TheMaker75: When the NPA was operating in Luzon and the major islands of the Visayas they actually had some power. Being relegated to Mindanao shows how far they have fallen.

Do you know if they clash or are friends with the MILF/MNLF/Abu Sayaf? I wonder if the military is letting them exist to keep the Muslims from spreading out of the ARMM. I have a very close friend from Bukidnon in Mindanao, and she says no NPA there. It’s a very secluded area with lots of coffee and pineapple farming. I’m curious as to exactly where they are.

The NPA used to keep corrupt politicians in check. The only thing to stop these scumbag Filipino politicians was the very real threat of a bullet to the head, and the NPA was very good at assassinations.

The further you get from Manila, the less you count in the Philippines. Mindanao is as far away as you can get, and I’m sure the New People’s Army is using the disconnect as a recruiting tool. In their heyday, the had a lot of control in Bicol and Pampanga. Basically surrounding Manila. They also owned the mountains of Cebu and a few towns along the coast. I’ve hiked straight across Cebu from Tuburan to Cebu City and never saw an NPA. It’s like an urban legend these days. My girl’s family was begging me not to go, as the NPA would surely kidnap me. I actually wanted to meet some, as I’m sure we would have gotten along. I even brought some Tanduay rum and knives I bought in Mandaue City to hand out, but alas, it was an uneventful hike.

In Cebu, at least the coastal towns were not fans of the NPA. The NPA would show up at your house at night and demand food and provisions. Not really the best way to win fans.

The NPA currently has a huge backlog of candidates wanting to sign up as guerrillas and it also has a backlog of people wanting to be candidates. It’s a pretty long process they have to go through to ward off infiltration and ensure loyal and committed cadre.

The NPA have always had an excellent relationship with the Muslim guerrillas down there.

As ceasefire is in effect with the election of Duterte. The NPA has actually formed some sort of an alliance with Duterte believe it or not. They are very pleased that he declared himself a socialist. The NPA’s aboveground organ gave him a list of Leftist suggestions for his Cabinet and he actually appointed a number of them. So the NPA in effect is part of the Cabinet of the Philippines government now. Duterte was apparently a politician of some sort down in Mindanao and he had an excellent relationship with the NPA when he was down there.

However, the NPA is very worried that the army which they call fascist will prevail over Duterte’s pro-NPA sentiments. Also the NPA says that the army has been violating the ceasefire mostly by doing propaganda, intelligence gathering, civic action programs, etc. in NPA areas. However, there has been no armed combat to my knowledge in six months. The NPA is also angry that the army has murdered four peasants in that six month period.

71 Comments

Filed under Asia, Economics, Islam, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Philippines, Politics, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, Socialism