October 26, 2014

The etiology of women who seem like gay men: a look at Anne Hathaway

During the trailer for Interstellar, there's a shot of Anne Hathaway looking sideways with her mouth agape that struck me as something you'd see from a creepy homosexual camping out at Starbucks to scope out the latte-sipping twinks. I've never been a fan of hers and don't have a strong sense of her range of facial expressions, so I investigated a little on Google Images. The hunch paid off. Here are just a handful of shots of her showing gay-face:

The over-smiling, overly eager open eyes, raised eyebrows, and slackjaw are all hallmarks of the campy gay-face. All resemble caricatures of a child's expressions of "surprise" and "I'm such a little stinker." The basis of male homosexuality is stunting during the "ewww, girls are so yucky" phase of development (gays as Peter Pans), hence their more neotenous (child-like / infantilized) appearance and behavior.

I've covered these features at length elsewhere, but here we see something similar in a heterosexual woman. In fact she doesn't just look a lot more like a gay man than 99% of women do, she shares their emotional and behavioral tendencies as well. Thin-skinned, breaking down over the most trivial happy or sad causes. Naturally campy and caricatured, not acting that way to be ironic. Loose and into drugs during college. No shame in using her sexuality to get a rise out of others. Childishly naive, easily fooled and taken advantage of by her first husband. And most importantly, no apparent desire to have children and nurture them as a mother.

Granted, women are more child-like to begin with, but she is way off the charts for how naive, kiddie, weepy, campy, and non-maternal she is.

How did she get that way? In the case of men, it's probably Greg Cochran's idea of a "gay germ" that strikes in childhood. My take on that is that its effects are a broad developmental stunting — a Peter Pan syndrome — and not merely a narrow change in sex role behavior, sexual preference, etc.

That raises the question: if it can strike boys and produce gay effects, what would happen if it struck girls? I think the answer is women like Anne Hathaway. (It would not produce lesbians, since they are characterized by the opposite pattern — not childish, but menopausal.)

As it turns out, her brother is gay, so we know that she would have been at a similar environmental risk of exposure to the gay germ in childhood. And being so closely related, she would have had a similar genetic susceptibility to the germ's effects.

The plot thickens with her second marriage. After being scammed by an apparently sociopathic first husband, she decided to swear off heterosexual men altogether and got married to an obviously homosexual nobody, named Adam Shulman. When every A-lister these days is part of a power couple, it's just a little bit strange for her husband to be a complete unknown, to have been a close friend beforehand (i.e., her gay BFF), and to look and act so effeminate and mincing, as though he were her kid brother rather than her lover and protector.

Other celebrity women have served as beards for closeted A-list men — Kim Kardashian for Kanye West, Cindy Crawford for Rande Gerber (Clooney's butt buddy), Julianne Hough for Ryan Seacrest, Jada Pinkett for Will Smith, and so on. But in these typical cases, the sham husband has wealth, influence, or looks that would "enhance the brand" of the sham wife.

In Anne's case, it would be inaccurate to call it a sham marriage, since it was not a cynical brand-enhancing contract, but an earnest attempt to elevate the status of her gay BFF-ship, in the same way that childish naive faggies believe that simply throwing a wedding will make their bond normal or special.

I don't mean to delve into so much celebrity gossip, but because their lives are so well documented, they do provide a window into a topic that would otherwise be completely opaque. Can you imagine getting funding to study how gay (not lesbian) the female relatives of gay men are? Maybe if you could spin it in some pro-homo way, but the whole topic of "what causes male homosexuality" is too radioactive these days.

Miley Cyrus is another example worth looking into. She comes off as a flaming queer trapped in a girl's body. And on Google Images, her brother Braison does a pretty good impression of a twink. But she's a little young to see whether or not she prefers getting married to a gay BFF. I give it greater than 50% chance, though.


  1. OK, I'm really going to have to jump on you here. As an extremely cute str8 guy who's spent much of his life being oggled by gays, I have to inform you that the basic premise is wrong. That is, gays don't come onto you, at Starbucks or elsewhere, with their lips parted wide in this fashion. Instead, they quietly give you this kind of shiny luminescence or glowing from the eyes. What you're looking at with this girl is just the Hillary Clinton go-girl paradigm. "Oh my GOD, we're all so imPORtant - and no brains required!"

  2. Update: I'm writing from a Mcd's. As soon as I finished the above comment, one of the great MILF's walked in, sort of a combination of Sarah Palin and Marilu Henner, with the latter's rack. So now I'm doing the ogling.

  3. I recently found out about "fat activists", and while browsing through some of their stupidity I found this:


    Scroll down a couple of images and look at that guy's smile. I have a coworker who smiles the same way. Would you call that a gay smile?

  4. I've wondered in the past if gay men were more likely to have lesbian sisters and vice versa. This would help indicate if male and female homosexuality have overlapping or separate etiologies. But I could not find any data pertaining to this seemingly obvious and straightforward question. If I recall, I asked Michael Bailey this question many moons ago, and he did not know.

  5. "I've wondered in the past if gay men were more likely to have lesbian sisters and vice versa."

    Sex hormones probably factor in here as well. The blogger Andrew Lehman argues that lesbians have high levels of both testosterone and estrogen, which makes them more mature and stentorian. So high sex hormones, combined with the virus, creates a lesbian or lesbian personality.

    A gay male personality, on the other hand, is created by low sex hormones, combined with probably the gay virus(since a guy can still be neotenous and not gay).

  6. women who act like gay men, as opposed to lesbians, have low sex hormones(low testosterone and estrogen) combined with the gay virus.

  7. I don't think I've ever seen Hathaway in anything, mostly because I avoid the majority of modern media like the plague.

    I've long given up on our culture's ability to not promote these freakish people.
    I guess it's fitting that as we descend further into a dystopian future we get such clowns for 'entertainment.'

    Regardless of whatever 'made' these people this way (frankly I don't really care what happened to them in the womb, what their DNA is, were they molested etc.) we've all got free will and these people would tone down their act if our culture was healthier. Before '73 the DSM listed Homosexuality as a psych. disorder. Later still, the phrase sexual preference was used. Only within the last 15-25 years or so did we reach the point where it became trendy to explain these people via biology (sex orientation). Just looking at how many 'gay' people have drifted in and out of different types of relationships with both sexes, it seems ridiculous to put sexuality down entirely to biology. I do think that a lot of Psych. disorders do seem to cluster together, so maybe homosexuality is one manifestation of disorder among others.

    I still think a lot of this is fairly malleable too. I'm reminded of an FBI profiler who explained how deviants develop aberrant sexual arousal/desires by focusing their fantasies on weird stuff to the point that normal stuff isn't good enough anymore. I think I've brought this up before but it still is relevant.

    New Wave stuff gets brought up on here on a lot, including Culture Club/Boy George. Did you (Agnostic) know about that group's drummer having an extended relationship with Boy George and then breaking it off to go marry a girl and then have kids with her? Doesn't seem like a beard situation, don't know why he'd need one anyway. Maybe he's still gay but really wanted kids who were his kids who'd be raised by the bio. mother. But that doesn't fit with the whole, true gays are too immature to raise a family thing. Also doesn't fit with the gays are too grossed out by girls to put their ding-dong in one.

    I think a lot of human behavior is esoteric and we don't know and most likely will never know exactly what inspires people to go down a certain road. Steve Sailer's pointed out with regard to some celebrities that they seem to unpredictably enter or exit certain types of phases. He's also wisely beat the drum on how profoundly f'd up trannies are.

    Maybe when unstable people are exposed to a liberal, fast living, drugged out, hyper sexualized climate that's all too easy to find nowadays it further disorders them. I think it does some damage to all of us in some way eventually.

  8. Also, it's pretty much common sense that the majority of full blown gays/lesbians tend to be sexually unattractive (due to physique, demeanor, behavior etc.) to members of the opposite sex. It stands to reason that they forsake the hetero normative community and embrace their fellow outcasts. Since men are more prone to extremes and deviancy, Gay men have historically been more alienated from the mainstream (their histrionics and bloody misadventures provoke well placed dissaproval from society). Meanwhile anodyne lesbians slip under the radar.

    Andrew Dice Clay once joked 'did you ever notice that most lesbians are the kind of broads that no guy would f**k in the first place'. No kidding.

    Did any one else realize just how many homo serial killers had accomplices? It's a testament to how deranged homos are that they so easily find and place their trust in fellow deviants. Almost all straight killers don't bother with accomplices because most straight guys never encounter other male weirdos to bond with. The two hetero pairs that come to mind are Lake and Ng, and also Lawrence Bittaker and whoever he palled with.

    Gacy and Randy Kraft (his 'lover' at the time of arrest later died of aids in the late 80's) were very prolific killers who's accomplices went unpunished


    Larry Eyeler was one sick bastard who's middle aged accomplice (an ex college professor!) is known and is disgracefully still at large. The website below is seeking pictures of that piece of excrement.


  9. Warning: don't read about Larry Eyeler or Kraft unless you've got a barf bag handy. Another hall of fame homo monster was Dean Corrl. He also used accomplices to torture and kill dozens of boys. And the cops stopped looking for bodies though they knew where to look and dig. One of the cops even told a family member of a missing kid that 'we've got enough bodies'! If ever the cliche of the chair's too easy was true, it is in these cases. Corll was shot to death though.

  10. "As an extremely cute str8 guy who's spent much of his life being oggled by gays, I"

    sounds legit

    "Oh my GOD, we're all so imPORtant - and no brains required!"

    just as easily a gay slogan

  11. I also favor the esoteric approach. At the same time, though, I don't see the harm in developing science. We are a technological species.

  12. For instance, if homosexuality did have a biological cause, don't you think that technology to treat it would be useful?

  13. Your new theory is far more plausible than your previous one that such women are all gay men with reassignment surgery. Cochran stated his theory was not expected to apply to lesbians, since there's a lower frequency for that and he presumably just hadn't given it much thought. But it is worth thinking about what effect the same pathogen would have on women.

    The only time I have previously come across anyone spelling "straight" with a numeral were gays at Sailer's describing one of the aspects of their subculture.

  14. "your previous one that such women are all gay men with reassignment surgery"

    Don't talk like an eighth-grade idiot ("all" referring to a single case study), it's degrading. Why didn't your teachers fail you in reading comprehension throughout your school years? Your helicopter parents would've bitched and moaned, but it would've made you able to re-state someone else's argument.

  15. BTW, that post arguing that the weight of the available evidence suggests that Sandra Bullock is some version of a male-born female-acting thing, is the most viewed post of anything I've written here. Over 7600 pageviews as of now, and it's only one year old.

    Since then, a regular source of people wandering over here is searches for something like "sandra bullock born a man." Not a huge source of new visitors, but a reliable one. In the original post, I showed how common it was for Google searches about her to include something about her being born a man.

    Nobody, especially not me, is asking that about Anne Hathaway or Miley Cyrus. (From Google, people's main curiosity about Anne is whether she's Mormon, and about Miley, whether she's dead.) They're what you might expect if the gay germ infected girls. Sandra is what you'd expect if an always flamingly gay theater kid tried to pass himself off as a girl. Not surprisingly, it gets lots of people searching to find out if she's really a dude.

  16. "For instance, if homosexuality did have a biological cause, don't you think that technology to treat it would be useful?"

    We know more than ever about the science associated with human behavior, but has our mental stability and therefore our behavior really improved all that much? As Agnostic has pointed out before, people were more jovial and confident in the 80's/early 90's, then around 1994 people suddenly became more neurotic and angsty. I really think that the zeitgeist/cultural climate has a powerful effect regardless of what people are predisposed to. For example, I've read on other blogs that mid century gays allegedly had fewer partners and they usually didn't go beyond oral. We knew a lot less about science/biology back then but the more modest/conservative culture made gays behave more responsibly. Then the Me Generation began to dominate the culture in the 70's and all hell broke loose. In the late 70's there were actually 3 separate prolific gay serial killers in southern California preying on naive and wayward males simultaneously. Aids of course became widespread in the late 70's (many people became infected in the 70's but didn't become fully symptomatic until the 80's).

    Rates of drugging have also been discussed on this blog. Rather than Psych. meds improving behavior, they're instead associated with periods of cocooning where people are more prone to irrational fears and anxiety.

    And our we going to somehow engineer humans to not have certain undesirable traits? We don't have a very good track record with that kind of tomfoolery.

  17. You mistyped " gay germ" with "gay term". Please delete my comment if you wish.

  18. Keep in mind that the overall number of gays is quite low at any given time (Which further proves how deviant they are), even in the anything goes 70's. This makes the trail of depravity and destruction they cut all the more alarming and depressing.
    It also makes their current, vast over representation in pop culture and politics an indictment of how clueless & warped people have gotten since the early 90's.

    "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Laumann, et al., 1994)."

    'The study also found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sex partners since age 18—a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual". (from http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp)

    Taking into account fluidity/malleability & fashion, it's seems obvious that some of these people who self identify/live as gay would be even less common in a healthier, more conservative period. So the true number of 'real' gays may be even lower than we realize.

    Also a note about those gay killers I mentioned above.They frequently worked with accomplices, so it wasn't just a loner/handful of bad apples phenomena.

    Can you imagine a straight guy broaching the topic of torturing/murdering young teen girls to another straight guy? Yes it's happened, but it's significantly more unusual with heteros for reasons I've mentioned.

    "In a national survey of random samples of homosexuals and heterosexuals, (7) 32% of those males who called themselves homosexual or bisexual versus 5% of heterosexual males reported having engaged in sadomasochism. 17% of lesbians versus 4% of heterosexual women also admitted to S/M. Likewise, gays and lesbians were about four times more apt to engage in bondage than were heterosexuals." (From https://web.archive.org/web/20050519075822/http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html)

    Another fun fact from that article: "A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals".

    No wonder gays end up being more likely to team up as killers. Harmless, alright...

  19. It could be that, with both the domination of gays in the entertainment industry AND the brazen openness of such domination, Hathaway is merely mimicking the gay face because THAT's what she thinks will keep her an A-lister---kissing up to the gays, subconsciously. Little different than when an actress "rejects her Christian upbringing due to homophobia" or "comes out in favor of gay marriage."

  20. "then around 1994 people suddenly became ..."

    In 1994 I was listening to Michael Savage's local radio show in San Francisco. That day's theme was boy-girl relations, and several women around 30 called in to say that men "won't even look at you anymore."

  21. "men "won't even look at you anymore."

    Right, testosterone levels fell off a cliff in the mid 90's . Action movies and rock music got worse, clothes got really baggy as straight guys lost interest in showing off their physique, and so on.

    Women, being more impressionable and all, picked up on and reinforced these boring, aloof trends. Their make up got duller, they dressed in black, gray and brown, their voices got raspier. There's a reason guys started to lose interest in chasing them in the 90's.

    Talk radio seemed to explode in the 90's. Did talk radio become a way to compensate for less outgoingness in the 90's?

  22. Feryl: Almost all straight killers don't bother with accomplices because most straight guys never encounter other male weirdos to bond with.

    It's not so much that, although there might be that.

    It's also that there is often a sexual motive and straight serial killing guys really aren't that keen on getting their sexual thrills with another man around (for obvious reasons). There is in general not another man in their fantasies.

    You see some straight serial killers with female accomplices, like Ian Brady, but I think women generally aren't interested in that sort of thing very much, or if they are, more of a voyeur thing where they like seeing powerful men torturing / murdering innocents.

  23. Almost all straight killers don't bother with accomplices because most straight guys never encounter other male weirdos to bond with.

    M: It's not so much that, although there might be that.

    M: Did you see the stat I posted about gays being far more into S&M? Being involved in that kind of stuff implies you're a bit off in the first place, and the more somebody gets into that, the more their arousal can become dependent on such sick crap. The next thing two fags know, they're discussing kidnapping and going 'all the way' with some poor dude.

    M: "It's also that there is often a sexual motive and straight serial killing guys really aren't that keen on getting their sexual thrills with another man around."

    Most straight guys don't mind tag teaming girls. If James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich can get off with another male present, that says something. It just so happens that very few straight men want to lust murder other women. Ergo, the very odd straight guy who gets those urges most likely won't trust another straight man to participate and/ or not rat him out.

    Male serial killers pairs assist and complement each other. The way gay and hetero pairs work is quite similar. But gay pairs are a lot more common, and gay killers in general are more common than straight ones. Look at the stats I posted above which show that very few gay people exist in the first place; it's astonishing just how many gay serial killers there are.

    Violence and homosexuality:

    That article doesn't emphasize gay killers with accomplices, but off the top of my head here's some:

    Dean Corrl and several male accomplices murdered dozens of boys in Houston. Early 70's.

    Randy Kraft and his aids casualty boyfriend murdered dozens in California, late 70;s.

    William Bonin and several male accomplices murdered almost 20 in the late 70's.

    John Wayne Gacy had some teen accomplices who procured victims and also dug graves for him. He and his workers did a lot of digging in one area that the police never thoroughly searched. They killed at least 25 and possibly a lot more. In both the Corrl and Gacy cases, jaded and overworked cops gave up on investigating/finding more victims.

    Larry Eyeler had a turd of a middle aged college professor (who still walks the streets thanks to a dumb jury) who egged him on and took pictures during at least one murder. If you really want to be bummed out, read about these two. http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-return-of-larry-eyler/Content?oid=880169 , https://web.archive.org/web/20061105161121/http://www.geocities.com/quietlyinsane5/larry.html

    It's not impossible for straights to team up, look at Lake and Ng who were heteros who assisted each others tortures, kidnappings, murders. They egged each other on almost in a competitive way.

    But most straight serial killers do everything possible to hide their crimes from acquaintances and sometimes everybody in general (killing a victim with no one around, dealing with the body alone, burying bodies/throwing them into mine shafts by themselves so they're activities remain secret). On the other hand, homos are such degenerates and they know that other gays are so warped that a decent amount won't report such depravity.

    But its straight white guys who are the weirdos, right?

  24. Speak of the devil, she just sold a NYC apartment for $4.3 million

    I've never understood the appeal of her and reading your description of her makes me understand what I've always found off-putting about her. The personal biographical information on her wikipedia page certainly seems to suggest you're on the right path.

  25. I haven't felt the appeal of just about every "it" girl of the past 20 years. If the appeal is purely physical, I get it, whether she has the figure I'm looking for (Kim Kardashian) or not (Kate Upton).

    But the ones who are supposed to offer personality or other non-corporeal appeal, I didn't get it in the first place. Anne Hathaway -- campy weepy queer in a chick's body. Jennifer Aniston -- dull, cheerless. Ally McBeal -- mopey, whiny. Sandra Bullock -- campy queer in a chick's body (LITERALLY). Katie Holmes -- dull, snarky smirk always on the corner of her lips. Lana Del Rey -- mopey, suicidal (although I checked Google Images, and she does look cheerful when holding her cat, good old cat people).

    The last "it" girls who I felt had a warm, cheerful, nurturing, free-spirited personality were Kelly Kapowski and Alicia Silverstone in Clueless (and even she was a bit too affected to feel believable).

    Millennials will push for Lindsay Lohan in Mean Girls, but she's not very sweet and charming -- more like not-offensive, not-repulsive, not-annoying, which is more than you can say for most recent "it" girls. I get the same vibe from Jennifer Lawrence. Compared to her pseudo-slut celeb-mates, she's wholesome and likable, but I haven't seen her open up and be vulnerable, relying on the audience's trust, like Molly Ringwald. (Although in fairness I haven't seen a whole lot of what she's done.)

    I wonder if girls would say the same thing about "it" guys. Was the last one who resonated with them Zack Morris? That was right when the culture was shifting toward irony, camp, and caricature, and suddenly Winona Ryder and Johnny Depp were the anti-"it" girl and anti-"it" dude. Zack and Kelly were the last trace (maybe not the peak) of the sincere, wholesome, heartwarming '80s couple.

  26. Someonw who would actually describe themselves as a "extremely cute str8 guy" is obviously nothing of the kind...

  27. " the sincere, wholesome, heartwarming '80s couple."

    Strange, how despite the rising crime rate, young people were portrayed much more positively.

  28. This is the biggest pile of horse shit I have ever seen. There is no gay germ. There are however douche bags, and you are all in that category. I honestly hope you all realize how wrong you are about everything one day. You all just want to see and hear yourselves talk. God help you when you have gay children or grandchildren, because that's exactly what your hate will bring you.

  29. I think the Gay Germ is as likely as the Gay Gene, which is to say highly unlikely. Its more probable that a combination of environmental, mental and social factors ("psychosocial") at a certain impressionable age (enter "psychosexual") that contributes to an individual becoming Homosexual.

  30. Other than Jennifer Lawrence I nominate several Emmas including Roberts and Watson.

  31. With regard to white gen X-ers/early white millenials and non-violence:

    Years Total Black Percent. of
    Serial Murders Killers Total Killers
    Prior to 1981 134 29 21.7%
    1981 To 1990 148 48 32.4%
    1991 To 2000 87 44 50.6%
    2001 To 2012 48 34 70.1%

    Blacks raised in the chaotic ghettos of the 70's-early 90's were more violent than mid century blacks and millenial blacks. Each successive gen. of blacks is progressively more violent than the corresponding white generation, though millenial blacks appear to be less thuggish than Gen X blacks (the generation that produced and listened to surly gangsta rap).

    The overnight disintegration of the black family in the mid 60's appears to have caused a sudden huge burst in black dysfunction with the effects most pronounced in those born and raised entirely in this period. Meanwhile, Silent/Boomer whites raised a lot of hell in the late 60's-80's but somehow their children born at that time adopted more peaceful, pro-social values.

    This only reinforces my belief that it if it ever made sense to lump whites and blacks together in terms of common values, it certainly didn't make sense in the 80's-90's when young blacks far surpassed young whites in antisocial behavior.

    Somebody on Sailer's blog ridiculed the very idea of a white street criminal; yeah it's ridiculous nowadays especially to millenials but older whites should remember how in the 60's-earlier 80's many Silent/Boomer whites were bikers, drug dealers, thieves etc.

    "I honestly hope you all realize how wrong you are about everything one day"
    Um, you could try to persuade us to change our opinions by putting more than two seconds of though into your post and actually, you know, make a halfway detailed argument instead of a childish complaint.

  32. Whoops, the chart got mangled but you should be able to understand it with a little focus.
    It's from http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Research/BlackSexSerKillers.htm by the way.

  33. Sheltered whites who've never lived near blacks wouldn't know any better about black serial murders. But then they go on to assume that it doesn't happen because they've never seen it on the local news.

    Hollywood took a stab at waking white people up to black serial killers with Candyman way back in 1992. And it's a horror movie that actually has a plot, so you figure they would've been interested in it, at least for sociological reasons.

    Perhaps it wasn't a memorable hit for them because, while the victims were black, so was the killer. BORING. Why couldn't it have been a Klan member who leaves behind backwoods Alabama for the Chicago projects, where he seeks bloody revenge for the Civil Rights movement, etc.? (Cut to: close-up of Boomer Jew who martyrs himself by leaping in front of intended 'hood victim.)

    I checked Wikipedia to see if they have a category for "black serial killers," and they don't. They have black singers, black actors, and so on, but information on black serial killers does not want to be free. You have to enter, with quotes, "American serial killers" "African-American" into their search bar, to get people who are listed in both categories.

  34. I forgot to mention that there is a WHITE LYNCH MOB plot point in Candyman. Not regarding the main story about who is murdering all these innocent people, but in a throwaway detail explaining how the serial killer got that way. Anti-miscegenation hysteria from 100 years ago is to blame for black serial killers today -- the legacy of slavery!

    And yet the liberal whites still didn't get hooked on the story.

    Even admitting that there are black serial killers terrorizing the 'hood is too much to surrender to the evil white racists who discuss race and crime. By now, it doesn't matter if you can cook up an excuse or rationalization about the legacy of slavery or the toxic environment of poverty. It's old and tiresome, and unconvincing. So now you just have to shut up about it altogether, and not concede any points about black crime to begin with.

  35. "Sheltered whites who've never lived near blacks wouldn't know any better about black serial murders. "

    Eh, I actually think it's more a generational thing than a class/geography thing. Gen X and even Millenial whites to a lesser degree* (see note below) are more attuned to horrible black behavior of all kinds since white people have been increasingly better behaved than blacks since the 80's onward as the serial killer chart above shows.

    White Silents/Boomers on the other hand are not only more plagued by dopey liberal guilt which makes them uncomfortable acknowledging black pathology, but they also grew up in a period in which they frequently encountered white dirt bags or acted like dirt bags themselves.

    As an '85 birth, you spend a lot of time around cynical white X-er's/Gen Y'ers like my brother who frequently deride the squalor, illiteracy and primitive violence that the black community descended into after the 60's.

    It's difficult to ignore the desolation of black culture when you grow up hearing about black 12 year olds shooting at each other for Air Jordans. Meanwhile, white kids of the 80's/90's shook their heads at their me-first parents and savage minorities.

    *I do think that a lot of late period millenials are going to be ignorant about threatening blacks because blacks have calmed down a wee bit in comparison to the apocalyptic war zones that blacks created in the 80's-90's. Also, Gen X-ers have an obvious advantage when sizing other people up simply because their free range upbringing gave them valuable experience.

    The sheltered upbringing of people born since about 1990 and the lack of crime/violence in their upbringing is going to eventually expose them to danger and exploitation when bad guys get more bold in the 2020's and beyond. When the Silents/Boomers finally wither away we're gonna have to deal with an initial dorky gen. and then a later a bolder gen. who emulate each respective gen.

  36. "I forgot to mention that there is a WHITE LYNCH MOB plot point in Candyman."

    I think stuff like this is an effect of Silents/Boomers who never want the 60's to end. They want whites to wallow endlessly in guilt and shame about the sins of the past. When a writer/director/producer imbues a production with obvious racial guilt tripping its usually peacocking too impress everybody and to assuage his own liberal guilt.

    The 80's were unpretentious and pro social enough that this kind of crap abated for awhile, but by around Candyman's release year (92?) it was cropping up again. And it's never going away until the culture turns on shameless status strivers and neurotic junk.

    By the way, I do vaguely remember seeing Candyman. It did scare me a bit as a kid, but horror movies in general hit the skids around 1989. Just look at the popular series of the 80's:

    Halloween 4 ('88) was good & a hit, Halloween 5 ('89) was mediocre and didn't do the same business.

    A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 ('88) was a massive hit, though I think it's a lot worse the Part 3. NOES 5 ('89) was terrible and flopped.

    Friday the 13th part 8 ('89) wasn't as effective/profitable as Part 7 ('88).

    Notice a trend anyone?
    Compare http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1989 to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1988&p=.htm

    It does seem like 1989 was the turning point for outgoingness. As people became more distant and dull we also lost our ability to make good art. I do remember reading on Wikipedia that some experiment done over the 90's (possibly starting in the late 80's) indicated that creativity has been declining since 1990.

    I'd still take the culture of 1989-1992 over the turgid, soulless culture we've been stuck with since the mid 90's.

  37. Sorry to serial post, but I just realized that it wasn't just horror; as http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/the-ruthless-guide-to-80s-action-timeline/ amusingly explains, action movies hit their stride in the mid 80's then slowly died from 1988-1994. Will Smith is pictured in the mid 90's part. I rest my case.

    In the Rocky series, the boring 1990 entry (part 5) was filled with tuff rap and black pop instead of the upbeat melodic chart topping rock of parts 3 and 4.

    Hopefully white people will emerge soon from the cocoon they entered in the 90's.

  38. Way back when I was documenting the cocooning phenomenon itself, and not its effects on movies, music, etc., I found that the late '80s / early '90s was the turning point for outgoing and public behavior.

    Video game arcade revenues peaked in '88 and fell off a cliff.

    Most sports you play outside, casually, had peaked around then, and so had bicycling.

    Target, Walmart, Sam's Club, etc. were starting to take over from the mall. Less all-inclusive of a space and customer base.

    Even pizza delivery -- you used to eat at Pizza Hut as a long, sit-down experience. Only Domino's delivered during the '70s and '80s, everyone else began in the early '90s because demand had begun to soar for fast food without having to venture outside the home.

    Then there was the revival of drive-in restaurants like Sonic. Back to the Midcentury.

  39. The sexual and romantic feelings of gay men and straight women have the same object: men. So is male homosexuality the expression in one sex of something (sexual attraction to men) that served an evolutionary purpose in the other? Do male homosexuals have feminized neural structures, along the lines of an intersex condition? If so, what's the cause? I think so. And while the etiology of this defect/quirk remains murky, research has implicated genetic and endocrinal factors. Evidence:


    I think the Peter Pan theory is wrong. Firstly, although you state as though it were established fact, there's no evidence for it. It sounds like the kind of theory that came to a psychoanalyst while he was sitting in an archair. Second, the evidence that we do have points in the other direction (towards genes and early, perhaps prenatal, development).

    But most importantly, you say that gayness is a holdover from the girls-have-cooties phase of childhood. But aren't the boys who didn't fit in with the other boys and preferred to play with the girls the ones who are likely to grow up gay? And aren't the rough-and-tumble lads who said girls have cooties and played sports with the other boys the ones who usually grow up straight? It's a stereotype that gay men had lots of female friends as kids, and it's a stereotype for a reason. This is contrary to the central point and prediction of the theory.

    Your theory is not just unsupported, but contrary to the evidence. Your comments about homosexuals also come off quite petulant.

  40. "The sexual and romantic feelings of gay men and straight women have the same object: men."

    Way off here, typical of a sheltered nerd with no experience with women, or having to suffer the presence of gays in their environment.

    Women want men, gay men want faggots. Women don't fetishize cocks, cocksucking, anuses, butt sex, S&M, and all the other standard gay deviance. Women's sexual and romantic feelings don't overlap at all with gay men's.

    "So is male homosexuality the expression in one sex of something (sexual attraction to men) that served an evolutionary purpose in the other?"

    Women don't have the perverted, AIDS-spawning preferences and behavior of homosexuals, so the homos definitely are not expressing something that is normally expressed in women.

    The feminization theory of male homosexuality is good for yuks, but obviously wrong. What women do you know who fantasize about bareback butt sex? Or who frequent nightclubs where there are dark rooms for random strangers to such each other off? Or who amass hundred of lifetime partners, and thousands of STD infections, whether known or unknown by current medical science?

    Gay men have the bodies of little boys, not girls or women. Ditto their brains -- what women do you know whose default style of humor is gross-out "I'm such a little stinker" stuff?

    And gay men have zero interest in giving birth (were it possible) or nurturing babies. You know, the defining female traits.

    The feminization theory of queer males is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. After you get a few laughs about girly limpwrists, you stop and realize that nancyboys don't remind you of women at all. Your typical woman is nowhere near that fucked in the head.

    Click on the "gays" category tag for the mountain of evidence I've built up for the Peter Pan theory, going back two years. It's the only view that makes sense. Feminization is wrong, so is hyper-masculinization. Faggots are only girly to the extent that females are more child-like ("neotenous").

  41. agnostic, you are aware that most little boys are not sexually attracted to other little boys, right? If so, how does being delayed in the girls-are-icky phase somehow cause you to get an erection when you see a hot fella? Is there any explanation of that? How does such a developmental delay not only stop the normal sexual blossoming of adolescence, but cause there to occur in its place an awakening to homosexual feelings? If homosexuality is strictly about maturity, why don't homosexual men start becoming straight like ripening fruit? And for this theory to make sense, wouldn't heterosexuality be preceeded, at least sometimes, by a homosexual phase? None of this seems to be the case. Rather, we can see parallel timelines for homos and heteros where they both become aware to their particular, permanent sexuality at around the same age. Wow, that almost seems to suggest that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two variants of the human condition, rather than chronological stages of it!

    And even you seem to be aware that queers are feminine. Gender-variant behavior in childhood is one of the strongest predictors of later homosexuality. And as everyone and his mom knows, many fashion designers and hair stylists are gay. Now, I don't know about you, but in my experience most 7-year-old boys are not miniature fashionistas. They'd rather play legos than braid someone's hair. So I guess that contradicts your theory.

    But wait! you say. I have an explanation for that! It's because when he's on the developmental path to faggotry (as you might say in charming manner), the pre-homosexual child becomes such a self-absorbed egotistical nitwit that he alienates the males around him, whether that be his male parent or his male peers. So he takes refuge with his mother. He hangs out with the girls. He befriends them and they become his peers. But--and this is a big but--that is where (not for the first time) your theory begins to become incoherent, because you're saying that he becomes gay because boys don't want to hang out with little girls, but he becomes effeminate because he IS hanging out with the girls? Which is it? Oh wait, it's neither because your theory is wrong.

    >Women want men, gay men want faggots.
    So gay men are never attracted to straight men, and straight women never attracted to gay men? Even if it were true, both groups are still attracted to males. But given that it's patently not true, it really leaves me wondering what point you were trying to make here. I guess you got to use the word "faggot", and that has to count for something, right?

    Let me clarify that I do not consider gay-male sexuality and straight-female sexuality to be the same. This is unsurprising because gay men have 10 to 15 times as much testosterone in their bodies as women do, a hormone which has a well known effect on sex-drive. I also don't think your description of female sexuality is accurate. As a Google search can attest, many women do indeed like penises and even performing oral sex, and the massive popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey makes it hard to contend that a taste for BDSM is unknown among the female sex. Women may not be as pure and sexually innocent as they present, since sexually active, concupiscent women are often looked down upon. And the popularity of anal sex in the gay community has an obvious reason behind it: men don't have vaginas.

  42. "As a Google search can attest, many women do indeed like penises and even performing oral sex, and the massive popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey makes it hard to contend that a taste for BDSM is unknown among the female sex."

    The current culture is so degrading and autistic that it ends up infecting everyone to some degree. Still, the deviant/gay sex psychology will at any given time be heavily more aberrant than the mindset of other groups.

    Healthy sexuality is about developing a connection to another person and giving them pleasure. But the gay sexual scene (which obviously is a product of their psyches) is heavily focused on the most degrading, depersonalized kind of behavior. Hence, you end up with glory holes, chaotic orgies, frequent and rank promiscuity, infliction of pain and bondage, and a single minded focus on body parts that obliterates the humanity and dignity of the particpants.

    Let's not forget that pervert gays (redundant, isn't it?) who engage in this are often knowingly carrying diseases. From a strictly selfish standpoint, their hedonism is yet another blow to their bodies that already suffer from poor diet, irregular sleep, and drug addictions. They also tend to be mental messes from the stress of alienated families and hetero friends (if they had any) and wrecked personal finances.

    Needless to say, the last thing society should be promoting is indulgence for it's most psychopathic (a pronounced disregard for the well being of others is a classic trait of psychopaths) inhabitants.

    If you're gonna play the 'prove it' card, please see my above posts which link to research demonstrating that gays are more likely to carry disease, be into S&M and be serial killers which is the ultimate proof of degeneracy.

  43. https://web.archive.org/web/20050404045600/http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html:

    "Besides gays’ preoccupation with sex, traditionalist psychiatrists have catalogued a higher incidence of personality characteristics suggesting psychological disturbance and an inability to interact successfully with others. Dr. Edmond Bergler, (1) who treated over a thousand homosexuals, concluded that gays tended to: provoke attacks against themselves and then count these "attacks" as injustices they had suffered

    display defensive malice toward others,
    exhibit a flippant attitude in order to cover underlying depression and guilt,
    display extreme narcissism and superciliousness,
    refuse to acknowledge accepted standards in non-sexual matters, on the assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homosexuals as compensation for their "suffering," and
    "be generally unreliable, also of a more or less psychopathic nature.

    Dr. Irving Bieber, (2) who performed one of the largest and most intensive psychiatric studies of homosexuals, characterized gays as "angry, bitter people with low feelings of responsibility." And Dr. Charles Socarides has emphasized the similarity of the obsessive-compulsive nature of homosexual sex acts to a drug "fix."

    Need I say more? So should we excuse the most deplorable kinds of behavior by blaming a 'homophobic' society?

  44. In this kind of discussion, I think we should be punctilious in remembering what the topic we're debating is. For that reason I note that your comments don't address the feminization-vs-juvenalization angle. So what are they trying to establish? That gays are uniquely deviant, mentally unstable or just all-around assholes? That sort of issue is difficult to frame precisely. And to investigate it properly, we should be careful not to substitute anecdote or bluster for rigorous research. But I will say something about the material you've references.

    You link to a pamphlet archived from the Family Research Institute, which appears to be a particularly extreme christian-right organization (which, FWIW, was designated a hate-group by the SPLC). The pamphlet was written by Paul Cameron, who was expelled from the American Psychological Association the year after founding the FRI for failing to coÓ§perate with an ethics investigation. He's the kind of liberal-minded gent who thinks that it's "not unreasonable" for consensual, adult homosexuality to be punishable by death. There goes Broadway, I guess!

    The three names cited all belong to deceased psychoanalysts. To put it bluntly, psychoanalysis is not a science. The psychoanalytic theories of Bieber and Socarides regarding the origins of homosexuality were never based in data, any more than Freud's stages of psychosexual development. Bieber and Socarides represented the psychoanalytic current that tried to cure homosexuality through analysis, which, if you didn't know, doesn't work and is without scientific foundation, i.e. bullshit. They were prominent opponents to the APA's decision to remove homosex from the DSM in 1973, which has been uncontroversial for decades.

    Since you make a lot of claims about a number of different areas, it's hard to know how to respond. But the consensus of experts in this area says that homosexual orientation is compatible with normal psychological adjustment and societal function. For a view from a more mainstream perspective than the one in the pamphlet, as well as a discussion of the inadequacies of psychoanalysis in this area:

    And for information on Paul Cameron, author of said pamphlet:

  45. I think we should be punctilious in sending this sperg and the SPLC to a gay nightclub where he can study how feminine the queers are first-hand. After getting five viral loads blown down his throat and up his asshole, he can ask some real-life women if that's what their idea of a good time is.

    The stuff about little boys not being sexually attracted to other boys is a red herring. Five year-old children aren't sexually attracted to anyone, so it's neither here nor there for the Peter Pan theory.

    Before puberty, normal boys have grown out of their "girls are yucky" phase -- they at least talk to them, play with them on the playground now and again (boys chase girls), and have already started to notice the babes who are 10-20 years older than them.

    Nancyboys may have found female playmates, having been rejected by the normal 10 year-old boys who don't want to play with the infantilized little faggies who still act like they're 4 years old. But even leading up to and during puberty, they find female sexuality utterly disgusting. If, in their mind, girls still have cooties, by default they latch onto boys as objects of attraction -- they don't have cooties.

    I've addressed all of this in dozens of posts already, including their more juvenile body types, which cannot be explained as feminization. The most solid evidence against feminization is their complete lack of interest in wanting to get pregnant and give birth -- they don't express sadness over an impossible to fulfill dream of the defining female experience. Ditto for future-trannies -- they only fixate on the incidental part of being a girl -- getting glammed up to get attention -- rather than the defining part of pregnancy, birth, and nurturing.

    And apart from that, they have zero interest in nurturing babies, which they could biologically do if they wanted to. Nope -- that would cut into their busy schedule of going out to party, suck cock, and get anally blasted by AIDS.

    Further comments by this tiresome, ignorant SJW will be deleted. Don't bother responding to them.

  46. I'm a little confused Agnostic. Who is SJW? the Anonymous homo defender guy?

    My condolences to Paul Cameron. Dedicated, intellectually honest social conservatives have been driven further and further to the margins since the 70's. The drive to brand such conservatives as irredeemable heretics doomed to mutter in the shadows of a disintegrating society is why I thank god we have blogs like this.

    For the record, my comments are germane to this post because the gay track record of severe maladjustment and narcissism indicate that they indeed are 2 year olds who never grow up, rather than girls in male bodies.

  47. SJW = social justice warrior.

  48. Can we 86 the Anonymous commenting handle?

  49. There are many reasons this blog is one of my favorite. This post reminds me of them all.

    But "I come to bury agnostic, not to praise him." There is no way on God's green Earth that Kanye West is gay. I will defend my fellow Chicagoan to the death on this matter (and no other).

  50. Kanye West strikes even casual observers as suss (narcissistic, campy, over-done appearance). His gay lover is Riccardo Tisci, an Italian designer for Givenchy.

    In fact most of black entertainers are on the down-low. I don't know if that was true historically, but by now it's a question of who isn't homo. I blame the Great Migration, whereby blacks left the healthy low-density fields of the South to the germ-infested high-density slums of the North and West.

    They are way more urban-dwelling, and likely less genetically resistant to the gay germ (which Greg Cochran speculates may have come from sheep, i.e. pastoralists, which there aren't many of in lowland Sub-Saharan Africa).

    It shouldn't come as a surprise to see down-low behavior being so common among them these days. Add to that the homoerotic practices of tropical horticulture groups in general, especially their fear of women -- women gonna steal yo mojo, butchu can keep it, if you keep it on the down-low.

  51. "I blame the Great Migration, whereby blacks left the healthy low-density fields of the South to the germ-infested high-density slums of the North and West."

    Didn't you say in that football thread from a bit ago that blacks have less innate self control than whites? To borrow a phrase from Steve Sailer, blacks are in dire need of stricter moral guidance. Modern northern urban environments are basically nihilistic cesspools so it's no surprise that the demographic most prone to reckless self indulgence (black men) ends up having more gay sex than other groups. Blacks are also the most psychopathic race; as I mentioned in another thread, gays are society's biggest psychopaths.

    Culture's of honor as well as more conservative cultural periods discourage me first behavior. Suffice it to say that modern narcissictic/libertine trends are going to be most heavily manifested in black males who already are extremely egocentric and immature even in the best of times.

    I do think you're onto something in terms of African misogyny. When men and woman fail to develop long term, loving hetero monogamous relationships there is a greater possibility that either sex will succumb to homosexuality. Blacks obviously struggle the most at keeping relationships intact.

    Also, the frigid nature of relationships between Asians would help explain the fact that Asians are more prone to being gay than whites. There's also the Asian deficit of morality based on instinctive disgust that Agnostic has explored before.

    Another note on blacks. Blacks tend to be immature & effete in their flamboyance & showboating, much more so than whites. Obviously those traits are quite gay. The modern worship of hulk black athletes curiously overlooks the fact that whites are more masculine in their emotional stability and moral maturity. The traditional western conception of masculinity places a lot of emphasis on mainting one's dignity and honor in all circumstances. The disgraceful antics of blacks up to and including:

    Childish whooping and dancing (when a play goes well)

    The faking of injury (to dodge responsiblility for a bad mistake or to get a rest and have your teamates pick up the slack)

    The embellishing of mental or physical pain (to get unnecessary attention for oneself)

    And of course, the profligate abuse of drugs and food to attain grotesque size.

    These things run counter to what white men once revered and practiced. That white men now worship these beasts exposes how pathetic modern western white men have become.

  52. Also with regard to the down low thing and blacks. The much talked about black 'homophobia', such as it is, isn't created by a sense of disgust and moral outrage (white homophobia is, though). Rather, it comes from the flaky, insecure hyper macho black male self concept. So as to not damage the vaunted reputation of black hetero prowess they make a big deal out of how they would never stoop to homo sex.

    The black queers doth protest a bit too much.

  53. I have to admit that I still doubt the rumors (this is a guy who was dating Amber Rose -- I just don't see her as the beard type), but once again tip my hat to you for your amazing knowledge of all things depraved:



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."