June 5, 2013

Gay potpourri

These don't seem to merit posts of their own, but still contribute to my ongoing project of explaining male homosexuality as psychological and physical pedomorphy (infantilization).

Before that, though, do you ever wonder what would happen if some group burned the rainbow flag in the midst of a Gay Pride Parade? Would the ACLU step in to defend the flag-burners' right of free speech, or would they help to indict them for a vile hate crime / veiled threat / etc. and hence beyond the protection of free speech? Google shows several results of people burning the gay flag, but not at a major demonstration -- just randomly in front of a gay center. With all the Pride Parades coming out this summer, there's only one way to find out for sure.

* * *

Speaking of Pride Parades, how do they fit into the big picture of the homophile movement being a surrogate save the children movement for childless women? Well, first note that unlike other marches about "We're here, deal with it" by minority or not-so-minority groups, the audience for sissies mincing around in their underpants are largely out-group members -- fag hags, supporters, enablers, doofus dad types, and so on. The audience at a Black Pride march would not be 99% white, nor would the Womyn's Lib army march before a mostly male audience.

Gays have accomplished nothing to deserve the applause they're receiving, so it's not like a standard awards march. They're all glitzed up and in full exhibitionistic mode, though again not in a way that deserves special praise -- unlike a ballet recital, a fashion show, etc. They get a free pass for dressing up like clowns and awkwardly shaking their butts before a crowd.

The closest analog seems to be the holiday pageant that elementary school children put on for their parents and teachers. The audience doesn't care that the performers look weird and showcase no talent -- the point is simply to make them feel comfortable performing before an audience, without feeling judged or criticized.

Children feel awkward before a group, and in the years leading up to puberty start to become anxious about whether or not a social group will accept them. The holiday pageant is meant to alleviate their anxieties, give them some safe training experience with group interaction, before the real deal confronts them in middle school. That way, they'll be prepared.

Neurotic faggots require the same amount of constant reassurance about being accepted, because their minds never matured to the point where they can sense whether they are or are not accepted by some social group, and what they can do to fix the problem of rejection. Gays are still stuck in that childish mindset of, "Well if you don't want to accept me, then you're all just a bunch of stupid-heads! Who needs you and your stupid group anyway?!" Rather than, y'know, make themselves likeable enough to merit acceptance.

Adolescents take it for granted that others are going to judge them, and that they'll judge others in their turn, as part of enforcing norms of group membership and cohesion. They occasionally bitch about the harsh atmosphere of all that judging, but they accept it and eventually get over it. Only pre-pubescent children stubbornly insist that no one ever judge them. "Well I'm not judging youuuu, so shut up!"

The Gay Pride Parade as a great big soothing head-pat for emotionally stunted brats. That also explains why liberals are so drawn to these things, even if gay rights are not a high priority for them in general -- it's that paternalistic attitude. They feel a rush from doling out reassurance because it pushes their helicopter parenting buttons -- "Awesome job, buddy!" Only here it's misdirected toward freakish man-children instead of actual children.

* * *

Why don't fag hags take it personally that their gay bffs are viscerally disgusted by the woman's sexual nature? Gays don't merely have a "preference" for dudes, the way that some people prefer Thai food over Japanese food. It's the squirming revulsion of the 6 year-old boy -- "Ewwww! You put your pee-pee in her vajayjay?! Gross!!!"

Women are into taking things personally, especially rejection, so why not in the case of such unforgiving repulsion coming from their little gay chia-pets? The "fag hag as allomother to Peter Pan" theory provides a simple answer -- the incest taboo. Mothers expect their sons to be grossed out by their own female sex organs. Indeed, they'd feel positively creeped out if their sons showed any other reaction. They understand that it's nothing personal.

The same goes for when the faggot expresses his disgust for female sexuality in general. To her, he feels like a son or a little kid brother, so it's only to be expected that he feel that way about "yucky" girls. However, in the case of mothers and big sisters, they let it slide because they figure he'll eventually grow out of it.

Do gay enablers really have that long-term forecast in the back of their minds -- that if she can make him comfortable interacting with females in a safe situation (with kin or imagined kin members), he might eventually grow up and appreciate female sexuality? Whether or not he chose to remain behaviorally homosexual, that is -- at least appreciating female sexuality instead of recoiling in disgust?

We'd need some kind of in-depth confessions, memoirs, or clinical interviews with chronic fag hags to get a better understanding of what motivates them to keep socializing with someone who finds their entire demographic group disgusting.

* * *

When I looked into the anthropometry of gays, there wasn't a whole lot to be found, and it mostly looked at standard measurements like height, weight, BMI, and so on. I noted that they need to look at waist-to-hip ratio because gays have totally straight hips like a pre-pubescent boy, whereas adolescent and adult men have hips (though not as pronounced as women).

How about an even more out-there measurement -- butt volume? Haha, no amount of "no homo" will ever scrub this blog clean after that. In all seriousness, I was at a second-hand clothing store where a real flaming Peter Pan type of faggot was working alongside two girls in their 20s. One girl said she tried on a maxi dress, but felt that it wouldn't work because it would show her pooch. The gay tried to commiserate by telling her that, "Yeah, I know -- if I actually had any ass, I'd have no problem finding jeans. But I just have like no ass." Something to that effect.

After he mentioned that, I drew up my stereotypical gay image from memory, and then checked it against reality from the thousand queers I have to be around every day. His remark was not unrepresentative -- gay guys don't have a normal adolescent or adult male level of volume, whether from fat or muscle. You don't have to look very hard to see it (thank god) -- the back of their jeans or shorts are often totally flat, and kind of hanging down because there's no butt there to hold them up.

This is probably just one aspect... er, one piece... I mean, one chunk... or whatever, of a larger pattern of gays having less musculature. Yeah, there are a few gays that have a normal level of fat and muscle, but most of them look not only thin but also having nearly no muscle. They don't look slim and wiry like gymnasts, dancers, or lead singers. They look like a pre-pubescent boy whose hormones don't allow him to build any muscle just yet, blown up to adult-like size.

* * *

As another way of evaluating these ideas about gay pedomorphy, when have you ever heard a girl say that "gay guys have such better" body part? I've heard girls spontaneously get all excited about "omigosh, ballet boys have the nicest butts" (and few of them are gay). And though I've never heard them in person, women do discuss online about which groups have bigger or smaller dicks, and can agree on the rough outlines of who goes where. Or that Italian or French or wherever men are better in bed than men from some other country (you don't hear much about Swedes, for example).

With all their desire to praise gays being so much more sensitive, caring, and understanding than straight men, why do they have nothing to say in favor of faggots physically? Handsomer faces, stronger brows, more angular jaws, nicer butts, male presence and charisma, arms, legs, feet -- anything? Not as obese, sure, but that's only an advantage over lardass males, not straight males in general.

Women show a variety of tastes in male physique, from lean lead singer to mesomorphic athlete to big cuddly teddy bear. But all of them fall within the adolescent-to-adult range. Even teenage girls, let alone older women, aren't attracted to kiddie-looking anorexic types with weak bone structure, unless they're only looking for a "practice boyfriend" or a "non-boyfriend."

So, women have nothing good to say about the homosexual body because it's all so undeveloped.

* * *

Hopefully these extra links in the chain will serve to establish male homosexuality as a syndrome -- not just an error in some single, tiny circumscribed part of psychology, but an entire suite of abnormalities that all appear to stem from a disruption to normal psychological and physical growth. Not throwing it off onto an entirely novel developmental path, but simply freezing it in place in the childhood stage.


  1. 'Pants falling off your butt' look- gay?

  2. The blogger Andrew Lehman believes that gay men and lesbian women are both descended from matriarchal societies - where women had high sex hormones(both testosterone and estrogen), and men were neotenous.

    This is why lesbians show so many opposite characteristics from gay men, as Steve Sailer documents in great detail at his website. Gay men are promiscuous and attention-getting, lesbians are sexually prudish("lesbian death bed") and straight-laced. Gay men often have trouble getting along with other men; lesbians, on the other hand, are known for doing well in the military(according to Steve Sailer).

    As you point out, gay men are not really known for political activism(most of the gay rights movement was planned and run by other people). Lesbians, on the other hand, are ultra-political and domineering. I wouldn't want to burn a gay flag at a lebian get-together...

    Lehman argues that childlike men and mature, commanding women evolved in horticulturalist societies - where women were the breadwinners, and men just impregnated women and entertained them. This lines up with what you've described in the past - in horticulturalist communities, women discourage male sexual aggression through sex segregation("girls are yucky"!).

    In such a society, a man didn't have to be responsible to suceed - he just had to be entertaining and attention-getting. this explains gay men's provocative nature - they are like a little kid, trying to get the attention of his mom. But in this case, they target straight men who want nothing to do with them.

    Now, not all neotenous men are gay - but straight neotenous men are kept in line by the demands of women. For instance, Lehman says many liberal men and black men are neotenous, but they aren't running around offending people because if they did, mature, commanding women would not have sex with them. In the case of men, lack of female authority retards their development.

  3. Now, how does this explain faghags?

    Faghags probably show lesbianish personality traits - repressed sexuality, commanding nature, responsible.

    I expect, though I don't have anecdotal examples, that many faghag-Peter Pan relationships are exploitive. The faghag tells the gay man what to do, and pats him on the head like a good little boy.

    Gay men, since they are childlike, are easier to exploit(but because they are immature and lack responsibility, they are rarely useful enough to be exploited by anybody).

    The feminist movement and the gay rights movement are intertwined. In my opinion, the "gay rights movement" was a cynical exploitation on the part of heterosexual, high-testosterone women. They saw the gays as being footsoldiers to pressure the establishment. Gay men themselves lack the assertiveness to fight for political rights, or for that matter to even identify themselves as gay(their provocative, harassing nature is not the same thing as assertiveness).


  4. "Women show a variety of tastes in male physique, from lean lead singer to mesomorphic athlete to big cuddly teddy bear. But all of them fall within the adolescent-to-adult range. Even teenage girls, let alone older women, aren't attracted to kiddie-looking anorexic types with weak bone structure, unless they're only looking for a "practice boyfriend" or a "non-boyfriend.""

    That's a tricky question. I think some women are attracted to those types of features - though they are a small minority. However, if you scratch beneath the surface of faghag relationships, I'd think you'd find they are exploitive towards the gay man. The woman is getting something out of it, be it money or favors. I stand by that.

    Its hard to back this up, since faghags are rare despite the phenomonenon being overexaggerated by the media. Something I may do is do some amateur research on famous gay men, and see the kinds of relationship they ahd with women.


  5. Lehman's theory also makes a distinction between femininity and neoteny. Neoteny is caused by low sex hormones - low testosterone and low estrogen.

    Femininity, however, is caused by high estrogen(and low testosterone). Estrogen is associated with two things: high sexual discrimination("hypergamy") and caring behavior towards young.

    Gay men are not feminine because they have low sexual discrimination and are not caring towards children.


  6. Good post, Agnostic.

    I wish the post at Sailer's about transexuals had gone on longer. I hope you are right that the end is nigh if they become the new poster children.

    It seems not a whole lot is known about them, but that Sailer, Bailey, et al., are the most knowledgeable.

    If I were a lesbian, few things would be more upsetting than having so much of what I didn't like (masculinity, ferocity, male sexuality, etc.) showing up in the form of freaks when trying to hang out with other women and whatever else these women do. Then they add insult to injury with their political maneuvering for status as Queen Victim. The politics of the lesbians preclude them from calling the freaks out as men with a sexual fetish.

    My question, how predatory are these men, in fact? How can we even know the answer? Who are they mostly attracted to? Is it really primarily lesbians?

    I know it's a rare problem amid many more important and pressing problems, but just curious...

  7. They seem to have strange relationships with their mothers in general. They seem to view their mother as some kind of gorgon.

  8. Isn't there a stereotype about gays having excessively close relationships with their mother and bad or no relationships with their father.

    Maybe we're entitled to our mother's love? But there's often this aspect of working hard to earn out father's respect?

  9. Lehman's theory also makes a distinction between femininity and neoteny. Neoteny is caused by low sex hormones - low testosterone and low estrogen.

    Femininity, however, is caused by high estrogen(and low testosterone).

    The biology of sex hormones and growth is actually kind of complicated: Neotenous characteristics are more due to ending growth (either in terms of shape or size development) early, which tends to be more due to reduced specific growth hormone.

    However, it's not totally separate from sex hormones though.

    E.g. there are some secondary sex characteristics which are stimulated by estrogen (breasts, fat deposition, etc.), but estrogen also tends to cause neoteny as well by causing bone growth to cease earlier, but more so in some traits than others. That is estrogen causes neoteny in women.

    This is why women tend to generally be smaller in their body than men - growth tends to end earlier in most bones because of early high estrogen levels - but some bones like the hips tend to be relatively unaffected and become large for body size, which is obviously because hips in adult women need to have the similar absolute sizes as in adult men to allow for healthy childbirth. Women who don't really experience much of that estrogen surge tend to be fairly tall.

    Basically neoteny is both a trait women have because of how their bodies regulate growth hormone but also because high estrogen levels during teen development directly contribute to early completion of development (thus neoteny).

    Testosterone mainly has a role in making bones (e.g. in the face, arms) thicker and stronger, but not longer (and this is more pronounced for bones where it has, in evolutionary history, been important that this is the case for men). But there is some role in causing the body to secrete more growth hormone.

    Interactions are complex, but high estrogen, high testosterone types would be somewhat beefy and bulky, with wide shoulders and hips, but also rather childlike and short in size and face shape (although growth hormone levels are a critical factor here). Types with low in these traits would be the obverse (tall and rather adult looking from prolonged development, but skinny, lightly built and linear).

  10. "The holiday pageant is meant to alleviate their anxieties, give them some safe training experience with group interaction, before the real deal confronts them in middle school. That way, they'll be prepared."

    Yeah, and it seems all that preparotory stuff got gutted in the 90s.


  11. Anonymous,

    Thanks greatly for the info.


  12. When I first saw the title of this post, I thought you were going to discuss how homosexuals' homes smell.

  13. Check out "Stephanie Seymour son" on Google images.

    Seymour is this supermodel with a teenaged gay son. Creepy, inappropriate behavior.


    I think gay guys act out a lot towards woman. It's like they don't know what the proper boundaries are. And their over-protective mothers coddle and protect them.

    I think I remember her saying that she and her kids all like to get into bed together to watch movies. I was thinking, her teenaged sons? I mean, her kids aren't little, are they.

  14. The only social problem with gays involves the politically correct establishment legislating new PC-thought crimes. It's similar to how everyone is forced to go along with gender reassignments by actually using different gender pronouns, as if they actually changed genders. I will never do that, unless it's required for a job. I will just talk around it by using their name or something.

  15. Saw a this ad for this play on the train home yesterday, and immediately thought it was strong evidence for your "peter-pan-ism" hypothesis - right there in the silhouette behind the title: https://sftheaterpub.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/pansy_program_print_ad-01.jpg


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."