The simplest framework is that they are a kind of pre-pubescent male child, one whose mindset is signaled by the view that "Ewww, girls are yucky!" That's the stage that their broad psychological, and to some extent physical, development is mostly stuck in.
It is only to the extent that adult females are neotenous (resembling children), that gays appear effeminate -- they both resemble children, gays far more strongly. But post-pubescent females have all sorts of mature traits that mark them apart from children, and from gays -- namely, anything related to motherhood (the maternal instinct, pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, nurturing children, and so on).
The framework of "hyper-masculine gays" never had much support -- relative to heterosexual men, gays are smaller, weaker, more easily frightened, cry more, and are totally uninterested in girls, to name the most obvious non-masculine traits. Those are all explained by resembling a child of the age that still feels that "girls are yucky".
The only piece of evidence was that gays are highly promiscuous, which is more male than female-typical. I showed how that is easily explained in the "gays as pre-pubescent boys" framework -- what would happen if you gave an adult hormonal sex drive to a boy who was still mostly pre-social. He wouldn't feel strongly attached to anyone outside his household, and could easily cycle through friends and acquaintances. Boys and girls do this normally with friends at that age; gays differ only in having a sex drive attached to it, so they cycle through "friends and acquaintances who they get it on with," rather than just friends.
It's only during adolescence that the social sense fully develops, and people become more bonded to their peers and behave in a give-and-take way to maintain durable social circles. And since gays are still in the "girls are yucky" stage, their sex drive targets males by default, who boys are not averse to interacting with socially.
Long-time readers remember this; newer readers can search the blog for "gay" and "Peter Pan," "pedomorphy," or "neoteny". The evidence is extensive. Nobody had proposed the theory before, either professionals or laymen, and either from the left, right, or center.
* * *
Having reviewed the overall framework for the first time in awhile, let's add another example to the pattern. I wasn't even planning on looking for it, it just showed up when I was looking at different music genres.
There is a very well established genre called the gay anthem. It's not just disco-dancing stuff, as there are weepy torch songs in there too. There is major overlap between "hoe anthems" and gay anthems.
And yet there is a related kind of doing-it song that does not show up at all -- the baby-making song, or the broader genre of quiet storm song. To show how little overlap there is, Wikipedia's lists of gay anthems and quiet storm songs have around 200 songs apiece, and yet there's only 1 song that belongs to both -- "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston. And that's more of a torch song than a getting-it-on, baby-making song. Only 1 out of over 200 in common? That is not a minor difference.
There are a few near misses, where the same artist and album are on each list, but different songs from the album show up on either list (gay anthem first, quiet storm song second):
1985 - Whitney Houston, "How Will I Know" vs. "Saving All My Love For You"
1994 - TLC, "Waterfalls" vs. "Red Light Special"
1998 - Brandy & Monica, "The Boy Is Mine" vs. "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You" or "Angel of Mine"
The case of TLC is revealing since you'd think "Waterfalls" would be the more normie-friendly song, and that "Red Light Special" would be the one for the over-sexed group, but it's the other way around. In the YouTube comments to the video below, unlike for a hoe anthem like "Gimme More" by Britney Spears, there's no stampede of gays rushing in to identify with the song, and the girls all refer to baby-making rather than letting their inner hoe shine.
What distinguishes baby-making songs (mainly a sub-genre of quiet storm) from the seemingly similar hoe anthems, or torch songs, that make up much of the gay anthem genre? It's the juvenile vs. mature form of social interaction that is assumed. An immature person can feel attraction, infatuation, be sexually active with another person, split apart afterward, and feel lonesome after the parting of ways. But only socially mature people feel the romance and one-on-one intimacy that goes along with long-term monogamy, marriage, raising families, and so on.
Baby-making songs are not about risking pregnancy by sleeping with just any old guy -- it's the special, unique one who you're invested in, and who is invested in you, to the degree that you wouldn't mind eventually forming a family together. If it's just about fucking any random hot guy, that's a hoe anthem, not a baby-making song.
If gays are socially-psychologically like pre-pubescent boys, then of course they don't resonate with the tone of quiet storm songs, which assumes a couple that is adult, romantic, and pair-bonded. But hoe anthems and torch songs would certainly work for gays: in their pre-adolescent and mainly pre-social state, little boys (and girls) already cycle through friends and acquaintances "promiscuously," it's just that gays have an adult sex drive attached to this process, so that they are sexually promiscuous while cycling through them, and perhaps feeling all woe-is-me after the acquaintanceship inevitably breaks apart.
* * *
In typical libtard fashion, the push for gay marriage assumed that equality before the law required equality in nature -- "just like us," "same love," etc. But gays could not be more different from normal men in the relevant domains of life. If the crusaders wanted to allow them to get married, it should have been in terms of giving them the privilege despite being so different, as a form of tolerance. I don't support it, but that's the only way to do it if you do.
Instead we just got a bunch of risible propaganda making claims about how the world works, which normies already know is bogus. It politicized and weaponized social science, as part of a polarizing culture war, rather than a civil liberties approach (tolerance, admitting the vast differences in nature).
What if you got the social science wrong? Then is it OK to revoke the rights and privileges that you based on it? Libtards never stop to think about that. If scientific discoveries -- or basic common sense -- disprove your claims about nature, and those claims are the foundation for your rights argument, then your argument is incredibly fragile. A robust argument is made independently of whatever the state of nature is, a topic to which we'll return in future posts.
Great post, glad to see you picking up the pace again this year.
ReplyDeleteJung suggested it was the result of psychological stunting as well. There are some good realtalk nuggets in what I've read of his work.
ReplyDeleteJung didn't say much about gays. From what I found, the only connection to developmental stunting is his view that homo relations are supposedly common among adolescent boys (wrong), and that those boys are supposed to mature beyond that stage and get married / have sex with / raise children with a woman.
ReplyDeleteSo, he's really saying that a male who had homo relations as an adolescent, and remains homosexual in adulthood, is stuck in an earlier stage of development.
I'm saying that gay syndrome per se is a social-psych arrested development -- not only on the condition that the guy maintains gay relations into adulthood. And I'm pointing to the pre-adolescent or pre-pubescent stage, rather than adolescence, as the point where they're stuck.
(Not stuck in general intelligence -- they wind up the same for that, but their social psych orientation remains pre-pubescent.)
Teenage boys most certainly do not feel like "Ewww, girls are yucky," and do not preferentially get it on with other males. In a New England boarding school or in a Macedonian army stationed in the middle of nowhere -- where there's no access to females, in other words -- then sure, some guys will think "any port in a storm".
I looked through this during 2012-'13 -- it's an entirely original theory. I thought maybe I'd happened upon it independently of someone who'd been banished from the canon, but there's no record of such a theory.
Why had no one thought of it before, when it seems so obvious once it's laid out? Because they had theoretical preconceptions -- I had never studied it, and was just making observations about all the homos who used to go to the Starbucks I was hanging out at back then.
It was during the push for gay marriage, and I bristled at the silly "just like us" propaganda -- at the least, everyone already knew how much more promiscuous and disease-burdened they were. But I'm not an ideologue, so I just kept my mind open to see whatever was there -- and every one of their thoughts, feelings, and actions was like that of a 5 year-old boy! It was uncanny.
"Well of course -- that's the age when boys are not just un-attracted to girls, but are positively disgusted by them."
The best science is done by induction, and so much social psych theory is just armchair bullshit from moral liberals.
And again, it's not like I was providing support for a conservative theory -- they were just as clueless. They were mostly siding with the "gays as sissies / womanlike" framework -- despite gays having zero maternal instinct or desire to get pregnant, give birth, nurse babies, or nurture and raise children full-time.
Same reason why I dismiss all trannies' claims about feeling they were born in the wrong body, and instead have a truly female or womanly nature. Then why don't you want surgery to give you a womb and functioning mammary glands, rather than a fuckhole between your legs and heaving cleavage? Hmmm, sounds like more of a sexual paraphilia than a desire to get in touch with your womanly nature...
Power pop is another post-pubescent genre that gays avoid (zero crossover on the gay anthem list). That's more of an adolescent genre, whereas quiet storm is mature, but that just goes to show that they're developmentally stuck in a pre-pubescent state, not simply "younger than married grown-ups with children". It's all the way back to age 5 (plus a sex drive).
ReplyDeleteAdolescence is when courtship begins, beyond the initial infatuation, and that back-and-forth between boy-and-girl is what power pop is about.
Unrequited love is a common theme in power pop, and it's not just a bratty pouting that the person you like doesn't like you back, so they must suck and who cares about their stupid feelings for you anyway (alternatively: woe is me, the world's going to end, wah wah wah). Adolescent feelings of unrequited love are more back-and-forth than that -- you try to change yourself, or grow somehow, in order to adapt yourself to your crush's desires. It's how the social sense develops, rather than stay the same and insist that everyone else adapt to us (the bratty, pre-social child's stance).
Ultimately the adolescent crush and courtship is meant to lead to a stable pair bond, not just a one-night-stand or a fuck-buddy situation. Maybe they aren't getting married and raising a family yet, but they're moving in that pair-bonded direction.
It feels really different than the way you felt toward others as a pre-pubescent child -- getting stuck on whether someone else wants you or not, whereas before you didn't value anyone else's attachment (outside your own family, of course).
The yearning and longing is not purely physical, it's a social yearning -- to be pair-bonded, to be her one-and-only guy, and to have her all to yourself, in an enduring relationship.
I've never heard gays talk about their own adolescence or current relationships that way, where it reminds you of a song by the Searchers or Tom Petty or Matthew Sweet. It's something only heterosexual guys can identify with (who are current adolescents, or are adults with a more adolescent mindset).
Bonus: quiet storm meets power pop. "Being With You" by Smokey Robinson (1981).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOf-9fgyZdI
The simple, stripped-down instrumentation, driving rhythm (with a little backbeat), only with a bouncy syncopated bass-line in place of the jangly guitar chord progression. It's an R&B or soul-inflected kind of power pop.
Unlike most quiet storm songs, it sounds more like the bouncy stars-in-your-eyes infatuation phase -- like power pop. But this is only because he thinks his woman might be leaving him. Once she's beginning to distance herself, it's like having to court her all over again, and you get that adolescent courtship tone, instead of the purely mature tone of a pair-bonded couple that characterizes quiet storm songs.
One of the coolest fusion songs ever recorded. Very much a forgotten gem -- reached #13 for the year in '81, and in the top 5 for the weekly Pop, Soul, and Adult Contempo charts. But you never hear it on '80s radio stations, '80s-related TV shows or movies, '80s night at nightclubs, or online commentary (including me -- probably the first I've mentioned it).