Why Does Homosexual People Looks Muscular In Both Gender?

[Kyle M]

Warriors adorned with feathers, bone and spears are "peacocking," as is the modern soldier with an automatic rifle. These are called "display rituals" and are acted out by men in all cultures in every age.

Peacocking with non-organic accoutrements, exactly.

 

[managing]

That's not the way I heard it or the majority of people who commented on it.How Kevin Spacey’s ‘Coming Out’ Grossly Conflates Pedophilia and Homosexuality

But with that said my point is that you don't get to define your own words. Gay is not what Gay says it is. Who elected the Gay leaders to have that power over the millions of Gay people. Being into S&M is not the same as being Gay and my only point is that it doesn't help the gay community to have these two different lifestyles mixed together. There are plenty of Masochistic or Sexually adventurous Irish but you don't see Leprechauns in leather marching during the St Patrick Days parade. (Though that may soon change with recent developments.) The Irish are truly are celebrating who they are and not some made up version of themselves.


No, but thank you for asking. As I keep saying "being Gay" is not the same as being into S&M and it hurts the Gay cause to have vast numbers of Americans, who don't have any direct connection with Gay people, think all Gays are into what they consider a deviant activity.

You have said before that one benefit of the pride parades is that they provoke a reaction from everyone else. Provoking people is not usually considered a way to bring people together and foster better relations.

Despite the headline of that article, i don't see the argument actually made in the article. In fact, it sums it up quite accurately:

"Here, Spacey has changed the narrative of him allegedly assaulting a 14-year-old boy, put on Jamie Foxx’s “Blame it on the Alcohol,” and ended it with, “Oh, by the way, I’m gay!” "

"By the way . . ." Its a smoke screen. A distraction from the real issue. In and of itself, its despicable for that reason. But nowhere does he say or even slightly insinuate "I assault 14 yr old boys because I'm gay". In fact, the only causality he gives is "I was drunk". Pathetic in its own way. But not "gay." Anyway, I don't sense that you want to argue this one to death and neither do I.

You ARE right that being into S&M isn't the same as being gay. But when I say "Gay is what gay says it is" I don't mean "gay leaders". Perhaps Forrest Gump might have put it better: "Gay is as gay does". FWIW, I've watched Chicago's gay pride parade from a friends apartment in the 90s. S&M themes were definitely there, but a minority. Way less than half but not insignificant. Either way, I'm not gay, so I don't define what gay is.

I do get your point. Every marginalized group deals with stereotypes. And if the dominant image (pun intended) of gay pride parades is S&M, then yeah, it doesn't do much to normalize "being gay". That isn't really my perception of it. But that is a minor point of divergence.

As for provocative behavior, I don't think I explained very well. Think of a gay pride parade, or really any overt display of "gayness" as a piece of performance art. I'll give you an example that actually made a big impression on me when I was young and still figuring out that I was different from all of the "given" prejudices of my youth. There was a fundamentalist preacher who used to come to campus. No, a wacko preacher. Even the fundamentalists thought so. Google "brother max" if you want to know who I mean. Anyway, he would rail at women for thinking they matter and, especially at homosexuals. He'd waggle his bible at hecklers and drink orange juice (peatarian!) to which the crowd would howl "screwdriver!" It was entertainment the way professional wrestling was. One fine spring day I had a little time to kill between classes so I spread out on the lawn and watched. Sure enough, he launched into homosexuality before long. I had noticed a guy sitting on the other side of the crowd who was dressed flamboyantly. At one point, he stood up, grabbed the hand of another, much less flamboyant looking guy, and pulled him to his feet. I noticed the flamboyant guy was dressed just like Prince. Purple velvet jacket, frilly shirt, the whole thing. These two march right up to brother max, stop in front of him, and start making out like two freshman at their first kegger. Brother max turned as purple as flamboyant guys jacket. And the crowd loses it, me included. This is damn funny stuff.

Now this is the conservative midwest small town state university. This ain't Berkeley or Smith, oh, hell no. I wasn't yet completely ok with the idea of homosexuality myself, and I know I was probably one of the more open minded people there that day. These two gay men were heroes to me. I mean the confidence and nerve it took to do that was much greater than anything I could have mustered at the time. I am sure others reacted differently. I am sure some were in fact laughing AT the two gay men as much as Brother Max.

I was provoked. It was provocative. No, gay men don't all dress flamboyantly, prance around, or engage in wanton (although not explicit in this case) sexual behavior in public. But that is the point. I had just encountered extreme gayness . . . and it hadn't harmed me in the least. Up to that point in my life, I had never met personally anybody who I knew in fact to be gay. Not long after, when I did, I was more mentally prepared for it to be a non-event than I otherwise might have been.

 

[Kyle M]

If you were a member of an ostracized and formerly persecuted minority, the last thing you would do to gain acceptance in society at large is to have a parade where you exaggerate your differences and feed the worst stereotypes by flaunting your sexual fetishes. I suspect that like feminism there is something else going on that is not in the best interests of the gay community.

This comment seems pretty strange to me. Black culture, black history month, BET. Parades of immigrants of any ethnicity that reaches a particular population in any country. I remember seeing a Turkish parade in Japan.

Point being, whenever a formerly marginalized or even persecuted group reaches a certain level of population and/or power in a country, they invariably SHOW this power with an outward display like a parade or an effusion of their values into the cultural spotlight. They celebrate themselves. And, if they are criminally inclined like the Muslims in Europe, they start to create no-go zones for whites and flip over and/or set fire to cars, things like that. Formerly marginalized groups, as they come out of that marginalization, ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE increase their visibility, they don't decrease it or maintain it at a very low level.

What counter examples were you even thinking of?

 

[x-ray peat]

This comment seems pretty strange to me. Black culture, black history month, BET. Parades of immigrants of any ethnicity that reaches a particular population in any country. I remember seeing a Turkish parade in Japan.

Point being, whenever a formerly marginalized or even persecuted group reaches a certain level of population and/or power in a country, they invariably SHOW this power with an outward display like a parade or an effusion of their values into the cultural spotlight. They celebrate themselves. And, if they are criminally inclined like the Muslims in Europe, they start to create no-go zones for whites and flip over and/or set fire to cars, things like that. Formerly marginalized groups, as they come out of that marginalization, ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE increase their visibility, they don't decrease it or maintain it at a very low level.

What counter examples were you even thinking of?

I'm not sure you understood the point I was trying to make. I don't object to the fact that Gay people have Pride parades or are seeking more recognition for their group. That is understandable and as you say common. What I think is counter-productive is that these parades do not celebrate the positives of Gay culture but rather emphasize a hyper-sexuality that not only misrepresents who Gay people are but also serves to dehumanize them, as all stereotypes do. No other ethnic group or minority purposely reinforces their negative stereotypes, but rather have parades that highlight their achievements and points of true pride. It's as if Italian's where to walk down the street sporting silk suits and Tommy guns during the Columbus Day parade.

Just a simple Google image search makes my point
gay pride parade - Buscar con Google

 

[Kyle M]

I'm not sure you understood the point I was trying to make. I don't object to the fact that Gay people have Pride parades or are seeking more recognition for their group. That is understandable and as you say common. What I think is counter-productive is that these parades do not celebrate the positives of Gay culture but rather emphasize a hyper-sexuality that not only misrepresents who Gay people are but also serves to dehumanize them, as all stereotypes do. No other ethnic group or minority purposely reinforces their negative stereotypes, but rather have parades that highlight their achievements and points of true pride. It's as if Italian's where to walk down the street sporting silk suits and Tommy guns during the Columbus Day parade.

Are you kidding? Have you seen BET? Have you seen the idols blacks put up to represent them? Italians? Seen The Jersey Shore?

Who are all of the positive role models that minorities put out there? Al Sharpton? Some Sportsball player who socked his wife in the face?

There's two types of minorities, one being like Asians that just assimilate and achieve without bringing attention to themselves, and the other like blacks and gays who reach a level of power in the culture and use it to project the (as you put it) worst elements of themselves into the spotlight, hardcore hamming it up. And if you don't like it, you're a BIGOT who CAN'T HANDLE their freedom! You're probably a closeted gay if you don't like them whirling their banana hammocked dicks around in your face on the street.

I saw Ice Cube lecturing Bill Maher on saying "nigga." Ice Cube is a representative of the black community. The guy whose group was called "Niggas with Attitude" and featured songs about killing, stealing, etc.

 

[x-ray peat]

Are you kidding? Have you seen BET? Have you seen the idols blacks put up to represent them? Italians? Seen The Jersey Shore?

Who are all of the positive role models that minorities put out there? Al Sharpton? Some Sportsball player who socked his wife in the face?

There's two types of minorities, one being like Asians that just assimilate and achieve without bringing attention to themselves, and the other like blacks and gays who reach a level of power in the culture and use it to project the (as you put it) worst elements of themselves into the spotlight, hardcore hamming it up. And if you don't like it, you're a BIGOT who CAN'T HANDLE their freedom! You're probably a closeted gay if you don't like them whirling their banana hammocked dicks around in your face on the street.

I saw Ice Cube lecturing Bill Maher on saying "nigga." Ice Cube is a representative of the black community. The guy whose group was called "Niggas with Attitude" and featured songs about killing, stealing, etc.

You are confusing the fake world of media with reality. These groups are all purposely manipulated for a number of reasons but most of all to keep us divided. When the grass roots are allowed to represent their true character you get a very different picture.

 

[managing]

Are you kidding? Have you seen BET? Have you seen the idols blacks put up to represent them? Italians? Seen The Jersey Shore?

Who are all of the positive role models that minorities put out there? Al Sharpton? Some Sportsball player who socked his wife in the face?

There's two types of minorities, one being like Asians that just assimilate and achieve without bringing attention to themselves, and the other like blacks and gays who reach a level of power in the culture and use it to project the (as you put it) worst elements of themselves into the spotlight, hardcore hamming it up. And if you don't like it, you're a BIGOT who CAN'T HANDLE their freedom! You're probably a closeted gay if you don't like them whirling their banana hammocked dicks around in your face on the street.

I saw Ice Cube lecturing Bill Maher on saying "nigga." Ice Cube is a representative of the black community. The guy whose group was called "Niggas with Attitude" and featured songs about killing, stealing, etc.

Nobody forced me to watch the gay pride parade in Chicago. I did it out of curiosity (no, not that kind, to anticipate the "cheeky" humor). Because I explore the world and am amazed by its diversity and beauty. Not just on TV (thank you @x-ray peat ). I am here to tell you, a gay man (actually, several) whirling his banana hammocked **** around on the street . . . did me no harm whatsoever.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Threads like this are hilarious. Simply what.

 

[Kyle M]

Nobody forced me to watch the gay pride parade in Chicago. I did it out of curiosity (no, not that kind, to anticipate the "cheeky" humor). Because I explore the world and am amazed by its diversity and beauty. Not just on TV (thank you @x-ray peat ). I am here to tell you, a gay man (actually, several) whirling his banana hammocked **** around on the street . . . did me no harm whatsoever.

Is that meant to counter something I wrote? The point, obviously, is that people who express that they find super sexualized flaming gay pride events distasteful are labeled hateful bigots by the main stream entertainment/press/politics elites, not that anyone is forced at gun point to look at some gay dancers. Explaining how eyes can be averted is not a fresh take, in case you thought you were breaking new ground with that one.

 

[managing]

Is that meant to counter something I wrote? The point, obviously, is that people who express that they find super sexualized flaming gay pride events distasteful are labeled hateful bigots by the main stream entertainment/press/politics elites, not that anyone is forced at gun point to look at some gay dancers. Explaining how eyes can be averted is not a fresh take, in case you thought you were breaking new ground with that one.

It doesn't make them hateful bigots. Necessarily.

Have you ever attended one? What is there to find distasteful? About super sexualized flaming gay pride events?

 

[Kyle M]

It doesn't make them hateful bigots. Necessarily.

Have you ever attended one? What is there to find distasteful? About super sexualized flaming gay pride events?

Do you disagree that many talking heads and "thought leaders" of today would call someone who expressed distaste towards flaming gay culture a bigot or something similar?

I have seen some gay pride events, and been around gays in clubs. My PhD advisor was very gay and went to clubs dressed like a girl with his husband, covered in glitter. I would get reprimanded for flirting with the girls in the lab while he described the differences between gay bear sex and gay twink sex.

 

[x-ray peat]

I would get reprimanded for flirting with the girls in the lab while he described the differences between gay bear sex and gay twink sex.

now that was funny

 

[managing]

Do you disagree that many talking heads and "thought leaders" of today would call someone who expressed distaste towards flaming gay culture a bigot or something similar?

I have seen some gay pride events, and been around gays in clubs. My PhD advisor was very gay and went to clubs dressed like a girl with his husband, covered in glitter. I would get reprimanded for flirting with the girls in the lab while he described the differences between gay bear sex and gay twink sex.

Well, I do find value in questioning "distaste towards flaming gay culture" which is what I was doing to you. Would at least a noticeable % of "talking heads" and "thought leaders" call that (your distaste) bigoted? Probably. Its not the approach I choose. But my question for you is, so what if they do? And more pointedly, so what if somebody calls you bigoted?

In your second paragraph, you describe a double standard. On the face of it, it might be. But again, so what? Presumably, somebody, perhaps one or more of the women with whom you flirted, said something to somebody in a position of authority who felt compelled to address it to you. I have no idea what the differences between bear and twink sex are, but if description of them is particularly explicit, I wouldn't see a problem with you raising the issue. Perhaps it would be a bit awkward as it was his lab and therefore I assume that he would be the one you would have to talk to. If he is smart and mature, he will feel compelled to police his own behavior even more than everybody else.

And yes, somebody might say you are just being bigoted if you raise this objection. At which point it would be incumbent on you to emphasize that you object to sexually explicit talk and that you wouldn't want to hear heterosexual sex acts described in similar detail either. You would, of course, have to walk the walk as well.

I also need to point out that, in the legal/hr world your behavior is potentially more actionable. Your attention is directed toward one or more women for a clear purpose, even if ambiguous and diffuse: to get with them physically. The professor's behavior may create discomfort. But it seems unlikely to be taken as a solicitation for you to be the bear or twink (or vice versa).

 

[Kyle M]

Well, I do find value in questioning "distaste towards flaming gay culture" which is what I was doing to you. Would at least a noticeable % of "talking heads" and "thought leaders" call that (your distaste) bigoted? Probably. Its not the approach I choose. But my question for you is, so what if they do? And more pointedly, so what if somebody calls you bigoted?

The problem, as I always make pains to be very clear about, is that our current system of statism involves involuntary wealth transfers and socialization by groups. If it was as simple as the majority of Hollywood making speeches (like Meryl Streeps) about how deplorable middle Americans are, then fine that's their right, but homosexuals and every other "minority" group in America have several avenues of wealth transfer from mostly straight white cis male men.

Hans Hermann-Hoppe said it best in a recent speech, that all of these groups are free to live the lifestyles they want to live, gay, feminist, whatever religion, etc., but that this is not the same as then receiving involuntary wealth transfers from the straight white Christian working men of the nation that they denigrate to no end as backwards and evil.

I believe that the constant hammering of "traditional values" as bigoted and backwards is an important part of the scheme to keep the public going along with these wealth transfers. It's the same mechanism by which the Israel lobby and powerful Jews, whenever questions begin about why on earth working Americans are subsidizing a first world country in the middle of a faraway desert that gives us no benefit but only headaches of Muslim hatred, they crank out a few public denunciations of antisemitism and a few more Holocaust films. Guilt is politics de rigueur.

 

[managing]

The problem, as I always make pains to be very clear about, is that our current system of statism involves involuntary wealth transfers and socialization by groups. If it was as simple as the majority of Hollywood making speeches (like Meryl Streeps) about how deplorable middle Americans are, then fine that's their right, but homosexuals and every other "minority" group in America have several avenues of wealth transfer from mostly straight white cis male men.

Hans Hermann-Hoppe said it best in a recent speech, that all of these groups are free to live the lifestyles they want to live, gay, feminist, whatever religion, etc., but that this is not the same as then receiving involuntary wealth transfers from the straight white Christian working men of the nation that they denigrate to no end as backwards and evil.

I believe that the constant hammering of "traditional values" as bigoted and backwards is an important part of the scheme to keep the public going along with these wealth transfers. It's the same mechanism by which the Israel lobby and powerful Jews, whenever questions begin about why on earth working Americans are subsidizing a first world country in the middle of a faraway desert that gives us no benefit but only headaches of Muslim hatred, they crank out a few public denunciations of antisemitism and a few more Holocaust films. Guilt is politics de rigueur.

Alright. So, you have a problem with talking heads calling you, or at least people with "traditional values" bigoted because it is how they transfer wealth from you, or at least people with "traditional values" to (in this case) homosexuals.

Did I get that right?

If so, I assume that is where the anger over getting disciplined for flirting with women vs professor describing gay sex comes in? That if you take exception to his talk, it doesn't stop or reverse the wealth transfer.

If so, what is this mechanism of wealth transfer?

 

[Kyle M]

If so, what is this mechanism of wealth transfer?

I thought I explained it, but here is another attempt. I am saying that a culture of making the traditional majority group of this country, being white male heterosexuals, feel guilty about their existence or their "privilege" or whatever it is that they are supposed to constantly feel guilty about, greases the gears of social acceptance of wealth transfer legislation.

Thought experiment: Are you more likely to give someone $10 who demands it of you out of the blue, or someone who has convinced you first that you don't deserve the $10 you have in your pocket because you got it unfairly? That's what all of this reeeeeeeeing is about, beating the debunked horse of the gender wage gap, complaining about increasingly obscure "problems" like toxic masculinity, not enough black people in the Oscars, man-spreading. It's a big PR campaign to get the majority group to feel like they owe something to the various minority groups, so they will bristle less when the legislation roles along.

The mechanism of wealth transfer is as it's always been, direct welfare checks, subsidized housing, grants, quotas for job hiring in government and increasingly in corporations, special loans for minorities and women, etc. When I was at Rutgers I would get emails to the general graduate student list serve all of the time about special grants to apply to for women and certain racial groups. Never once got an email about a grant or loan specifically for whites or males.

If you don't get what I'm saying at this point, I'm not going to try and explain it again, as it already seems like you're being intentionally thick about it.

 

[tara]

Physically they look exactly the same as heterosexuals. Unless you have statistical evidence for that, this is absolutely non sense. My two cents.

+1

The only thing one can reliably say about homosexuality is that it is too complex of a phenomenon to go looking for singular "causes".

+1.

Religious opposition.
Society wise it is useful to oppose as well; as they oppose the traditional family and Christian values, changing laws to force Christians to submit.

If you or others you know have been forced to submit to something by someone who happens to be Gay, I'm sorry to hear that. I've not seen it promoted as a goal of the movement.
I don't know what you mean by changing laws to force Christians to submit. It sounds rather odd - I don't imagine compulsory homosexuality is being proposed to replace the previous compulsory heterosexuality policies.

religious discrimination against Christians

Freedom of religion shouldn't extend to allowing people to impose their religious beliefs and values on other people, or imposing harsh punishments on others for not conforming to your religious values. Fortunately, in my country and yours, capital punishment and stoning etc is not permitted on grounds of religious freedom either.

Are you aware of the history, both recent and not so recent, of attacks and exclusion against Gays? The murders haven't stopped since the German Holocaust or the Harvey Milk murder and the Stonewall riots against extreme police brutality. Its not long since someone opened fire in a US nightclub and murdered a whole lot of people.

In light of the history, if some Gays are upset with your attitude, it is hardly surprising. I'm sorry you've been spat at, but in the scheme of things, consider getting some perspective. Heterosexual men have not been systematically beaten and murdered on a large scale over a long time just for having that identity. (Take a look at the hate crimes stats if you are not aware of them.)

I've seen some pretty vicious behaviour in the name of Christianity (historically, it's included a fair bit of mass murder, too), and I know lots of people who are very angry and negative about Christians and Christianity. I remember that there is some good in it - for instance, values of Love, practices that maintain community in a world where trends towards individualism and greed, many Christians who work kindly and bravely for justice and peace (as well as the oppressive legacy of the Crusades, Witchhunts, anti-Jewish pogroms, anti-Indigenous genocides, and ongoing wars, oppression and bullying, etc). The attitude of judgement and entitlement to make Gay people's lives harder does not strike me as demonstrating the best of Christian values. Everyone has a right to employment, housing, etc. Fortunately, I know there are many Christians whose attitude is more like this:
https://www.amazon.com/SignsOfJusti...reative=9325#HLCXComparisonWidget_feature_div

 

[managing]

I thought I explained it, but here is another attempt. I am saying that a culture of making the traditional majority group of this country, being white male heterosexuals, feel guilty about their existence or their "privilege" or whatever it is that they are supposed to constantly feel guilty about, greases the gears of social acceptance of wealth transfer legislation.

Thought experiment: Are you more likely to give someone $10 who demands it of you out of the blue, or someone who has convinced you first that you don't deserve the $10 you have in your pocket because you got it unfairly? That's what all of this reeeeeeeeing is about, beating the debunked horse of the gender wage gap, complaining about increasingly obscure "problems" like toxic masculinity, not enough black people in the Oscars, man-spreading. It's a big PR campaign to get the majority group to feel like they owe something to the various minority groups, so they will bristle less when the legislation roles along.

The mechanism of wealth transfer is as it's always been, direct welfare checks, subsidized housing, grants, quotas for job hiring in government and increasingly in corporations, special loans for minorities and women, etc. When I was at Rutgers I would get emails to the general graduate student list serve all of the time about special grants to apply to for women and certain racial groups. Never once got an email about a grant or loan specifically for whites or males.

If you don't get what I'm saying at this point, I'm not going to try and explain it again, as it already seems like you're being intentionally thick about it.

I'm kind of lost in all of this. I'd not give $10 to someone who demanded it of me out of the blue nor would anybody be likely to convince me I got it unfairly, especially not by virtue of being white, or male, or hetero, or whatever, which so far as I can tell is just like you. If somebody asked me nicely for it and I felt they were in need, I might give it. Otherwise . . . .

As for homosexuality, I've never seen "The mechanism of wealth transfer is as it's always been, direct welfare checks, subsidized housing, grants, quotas for job hiring in government and increasingly in corporations, special loans . . . " for sexual preference. But even if I did, I've been very successful in life. In spite of being a white, hetero, male, I guess? I'm sorry if you haven't. Still not sure I understand the nature and mechanism of your oppressors.

 

[Kyle Bigman]

HAHA

 

[GelatinGoblin]

Maybe you should know that it is the male that is beautiful in humans, and across animal species.

You are disillusioned by modern media and makeup. Men are pretty. Men have sex with other men for pleasure, and with women to reproduce. We have less powerful hormonal cycles than women, but the premise exists.

My god... your morality is at an end!