Post: #51

(10-14-2015 07:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The push towards "gender fluidity" is backwards Third World-ism,

Try touching another man's penis in any third-world-ism and get your teeth kicked in for free.

Yes, its a step back, but normalized effeminacy and feminism is a product of the first world. Our agrarian ancestors got it right the first time around.

Post: #52

(10-14-2015 11:47 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  They are radicalizing people with their agenda. The consequences will not be pleasant.

This is why this crap doesn't really worry me. They're doing our job for us.

The fact that I'm meeting so many regular people who even notice something is up amazes me.

If they do radicalise the proles, I don't expect the media and academic classes to survive.

No great loss.

Post: #53

(10-14-2015 10:39 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 09:14 AM)Isaac Jordan Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:21 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  There was a study that showed that when monitored straight men were only aroused by women, gay men by men and women by all sorts of things. The finding was that men are pretty binary in their likes while women's desires are more far-reaching.

Unfortunately, I can't find the articles on that study, but it was floating around the manosphere a few years ago. Maybe someone can find it.

Found it:

Quote:She found footage of bonobos, a species of ape, as they mated, and then, because the accompanying sounds were dull — “bonobos don’t seem to make much noise in sex,” she told me, “though the females give a kind of pleasure grin and make chirpy sounds” — she dubbed in some animated chimpanzee hooting and screeching.

Not again the Bonobos - someone in the 'sphere had a large article on it and debunked that crap. Bonobos in captivity indeed fuck anything just like many men engage in homosexual behaviors behind bars.

However as soon as released and studied in freedom, then Bonobos are heterosexual, aggressive, dominant and territorial. Humans are the same - their sexuality adapts out of necessity and not because that enjoy fucking another dude.

The numbers of homosexuals seem to be constant at 0,5%- 0.7% of the population (I count only those that were not abused - when you are sexually abused as a child, then your chances go way up to be gay).

That article is another point of promotion of homosexuality.

I have already read articles like: "Is not having gay sex homophobic?" as well as "Not wanting to fuck a black girl/man is racist!"

Fuck them all and their propaganda.

Must be a different bonobo study. The one linked to had nothing to do with bonobo sexuality (other than a semi-relevant stray comment about the noises they make) but about women responding sexually to pretty much any kind of species or gender going at it, while straight men only respond to women.

Post: #54

(10-14-2015 12:55 PM)germanico Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The push towards "gender fluidity" is backwards Third World-ism,

Try touching another man's penis in any third-world-ism and get your teeth kicked in for free.

Yes, its a step back, but normalized effeminacy and feminism is a product of the first world. Our agrarian ancestors got it right the first time around.

Homosexuality amongst supposed heterosexuals is very widespread in India and the Muslim world. I heard it occurs in SE Asia too.

Post: #55

It is actually a compliment from the ruling class that they put so much effort into mindfucking men. They know we are the only threat to them. Women will go along with whoever they believe to be in power.

Post: #56

(10-14-2015 12:55 PM)germanico Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The push towards "gender fluidity" is backwards Third World-ism,

Try touching another man's penis in any third-world-ism and get your teeth kicked in for free.

Yes, its a step back, but normalized effeminacy and feminism is a product of the first world. Our agrarian ancestors got it right the first time around.

Not true, Afghans have their dancing boys, Thai and South East Asians have huge numbers of gays and trannies, Pacific Islanders have long standing tranny traditions, forcing the youngest son into it, India too have trannies and the Ottoman empire languished in pedophile homosexual behavior and probably would still in that entire region if not for stricter Sunni islamic changes.

Western protestant culture was likely the least accepting out of all cultures in the world.

Post: #57

Quote:Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men

Quote:Straight White Men

Quote:White

Wait what? Why just white men? Huh?

Post: #58

(10-14-2015 12:56 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:47 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  They are radicalizing people with their agenda. The consequences will not be pleasant.

This is why this crap doesn't really worry me. They're doing our job for us.

The fact that I'm meeting so many regular people who even notice something is up amazes me.

If they do radicalise the proles, I don't expect the media and academic classes to survive.

No great loss.

AB, we'll just surround them, take all their gasoline and their women, and send them into the wasteland.

Then you can deliver a speech to them and say, "I am gravely disappointed. Once again, you force me to release my dogs of war. Look at what remains..."

Post: #59

You're either gay or you're not gay. If you have sex with men, you're gay.

Post: #60

(10-14-2015 02:34 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 12:56 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:47 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  They are radicalizing people with their agenda. The consequences will not be pleasant.

This is why this crap doesn't really worry me. They're doing our job for us.

The fact that I'm meeting so many regular people who even notice something is up amazes me.

If they do radicalise the proles, I don't expect the media and academic classes to survive.

No great loss.

AB, we'll just surround them, take all their gasoline and their women, and send them into the wasteland.

Then you can deliver a speech to them and say, "I am gravely disappointed. Once again, you force me to release my dogs of war. Look at what remains..."

I've seen their 'women', brother. They're not welcome in Boschtown.

Anyway, I was thinking about the 'Down Low' normalisation agenda, so figured I'd see if there'd been other articles about this stupid woman and her stupid work.

As expected, all the usual suspects.

Guardian:

Why can straight white men have sex with men without social consequences?

Huffington Post:

https://archive.is/boS8f

VICE:

https://archive.is/6j3Sp

NYMag:

https://archive.is/b5qoM

Gawker:

https://archive.is/fxLHV

There's also one at Forbes, but Archive Today can't capture it and I'm not about to give them clicks.

All of them are the standard affectation of intelligent, critical thinking whilst blindly-taking at face value what a 'smart person' has just told them, and repeating it that you get in the 95-115 IQ range that makes up Media, Psychology and Gender Graduates.

I'm increasingly becoming convinced of two things:

1) Non-Stem University Graduates can be convinced of anything, if they believe it makes them look intelligent.

2) The rise of marginalised voices makes me understand the cultural importance of keeping them marginalised: they are mentally-and-emotionally-damaged, and want to destroy the society that correctly identifies them as broken and dangerous.

Now, let's have a closer look at Jane Ward, the 'researcher' in question:

Quote:“I find both heterosexual and mainstream gay culture distasteful and often pitiable; that my partner and I are not ladies and we don’t want our relationship described as beautiful; that if you think you would be happier as a dyke you could and should be one; and that I don’t want a good public image (at least not the kind for which mainstream gay and lesbian movement is striving); and that it is precisely because queerness refuses normalization that is meaningful to me and to other queers. The subversion is where the romance lies.”

No agenda there.

I'm honestly-shocked at just how dumb modern university graduates are. It seems to never occur to them that people might have hidden agendas. I was greatly disheartened by the amount of 'educated' young Progressives who took Todd Nickerson's word that he was a 'virtuous pedophile' at face value: "He said he would never touch a child." They'd say this again and again, in a voice I imagined as being Brainy Smurf's. As if the mentally-abnormal are honest, reliable narrators.

I'm starting to think there's an exploitable-gullibility to them. I wonder if I could monetise it.

Post: #61

This is the same type of HateRead trolling as ROK perpetuates on sjw/feminists, except on this end is all y'all and there are still clicks coming to Salon.com

Post: #62

What is 'degenerate' today will be 'natural' tomorrow. What these magazines are doing is to 'normalize' this extremely rare occurrences-if they ever happen at all- in order for people to view this as socially acceptable. Young boys who don't have strong father figures or a religious upbringing,while start believing this. And some indulging in it.

This feminists who promote this 'social engineering' are the true hate group against men. Obviously the writers of Salon are bitter hags who don't care what could happen to their boys(children/relatives) and the future generations of women who will suffer when there are no alpha males around.

Post: #63

(10-14-2015 05:32 PM)Virtus Wrote:  This is the same type of HateRead trolling as ROK perpetuates on sjw/feminists, except on this end is all y'all and there are still clicks coming to Salon.com

This is why I've always suggested to use an Archiving Site like Archive Today when sharing an article so they don't get money from Hate Clicks, as I did above.

Post: #64

(10-14-2015 04:20 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 02:34 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 12:56 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:47 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  They are radicalizing people with their agenda. The consequences will not be pleasant.

This is why this crap doesn't really worry me. They're doing our job for us.

The fact that I'm meeting so many regular people who even notice something is up amazes me.

If they do radicalise the proles, I don't expect the media and academic classes to survive.

No great loss.

AB, we'll just surround them, take all their gasoline and their women, and send them into the wasteland.

Then you can deliver a speech to them and say, "I am gravely disappointed. Once again, you force me to release my dogs of war. Look at what remains..."

I've seen their 'women', brother. They're not welcome in Boschtown.

Anyway, I was thinking about the 'Down Low' normalisation agenda, so figured I'd see if there'd been other articles about this stupid woman and her stupid work.

As expected, all the usual suspects.

Guardian:

Why can straight white men have sex with men without social consequences?

Huffington Post:

https://archive.is/boS8f

VICE:

https://archive.is/6j3Sp

NYMag:

https://archive.is/b5qoM

Gawker:

https://archive.is/fxLHV

There's also one at Forbes, but Archive Today can't capture it and I'm not about to give them clicks.

All of them are the standard affectation of intelligent, critical thinking whilst blindly-taking at face value what a 'smart person' has just told them, and repeating it that you get in the 95-115 IQ range that makes up Media, Psychology and Gender Graduates.

I'm increasingly becoming convinced of two things:

1) Non-Stem University Graduates can be convinced of anything, if they believe it makes them look intelligent.

2) The rise of marginalised voices makes me understand the cultural importance of keeping them marginalised: they are mentally-and-emotionally-damaged, and want to destroy the society that correctly identifies them as broken and dangerous.

Now, let's have a closer look at Jane Ward, the 'researcher' in question:

Quote:“I find both heterosexual and mainstream gay culture distasteful and often pitiable; that my partner and I are not ladies and we don’t want our relationship described as beautiful; that if you think you would be happier as a dyke you could and should be one; and that I don’t want a good public image (at least not the kind for which mainstream gay and lesbian movement is striving); and that it is precisely because queerness refuses normalization that is meaningful to me and to other queers. The subversion is where the romance lies.”

No agenda there.

I'm honestly-shocked at just how dumb modern university graduates are. It seems to never occur to them that people might have hidden agendas. I was greatly disheartened by the amount of 'educated' young Progressives who took Todd Nickerson's word that he was a 'virtuous pedophile' at face value: "He said he would never touch a child." They'd say this again and again, in a voice I imagined as being Brainy Smurf's. As if the mentally-abnormal are honest, reliable narrators.

I'm starting to think there's an exploitable-gullibility to them. I wonder if I could monetise it.

As bad as you think it is, it's actually worse.

First, there is no real thought involved. You give them too much credit. When a publication writes something that grabs headlines, the editors of other publications assign someone to "re-blog" it -- without the slightest bit of thought as to whether it's true or false.

Since it's being attributed to someone else, all they have to do is write "according to Salon" (or whomever) and there are no ethical or legal ramifications. And, in fact, no one even thinks that far ahead. The next day, they're back on the hamster wheel, doing more "re-blogging" and whoring for even more Web clicks, which bring in advertising money. This is why you see variations of the same story each day in fifty different places.

***

It wasn't always this way. When Web writing came to be in the 1990s, it was at first an expansive offshoot of legacy journalism. Sometime around 1994 or so, editors and writers realized they could go "long form" online without the constraints of newsprint, and some really great writing was published. This lasted around ten years.

It gradually all fell apart for two reasons. First, newspapers were no longer making much money with print editions and sought to monetize the Web. That means less long form articles and more click bait -- the more Web hits, the more they please the advertisers.

Then around 2010-11, the smart phone because ubiquitous. Game over for real journalism (for the most part). That's when editors started asking "writers" to simply re-blog articles (see above) to try and steal Web clicks away from other publications blogging the same story. People with lots of experience and fancy degrees found themselves going from writing in-depth analyses of issues to doing a job a high schooler could do.

As for the original content and how that gets generated: The direction and content of these stories is decided in meetings. Then the writers fill the order. If the writer comes to a conclusion the editors don't like, it usually won't run in that form unless the writer has a lot of clout. But if you have that much power, you're probably earning a lot of money and feel little need to rock the boat.

The end.

Post: #65

The article is complete bonk. An experiment in word-play. Because I sometimes write novelettes, I am guilty of the same pleasure. However, the article being posted on a "news and opinion" site lends it some form of credibility -- to those who might be susceptible. Closet fags and whatnot. The site is truly reaching to the bottom of the bowl in an attempt to dredge up more of their own. It's sad, really, how far down they need to reach to try to make a point. Biology is simple. Man + Woman = Generation. Any other mode is just masturbation. And any other sex between Man and Woman is just practice for the Prime Event. Strong kids come from sex that is masterful, intense, and fun -- on both sides of the equation.

Post: #66

(10-14-2015 02:31 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Western protestant culture was likely the least accepting out of all cultures in the world.

I don't think non protestant Western cultures more accepting of homosexuality than protestant ones. South American cultures don't seem to be that accepting either.

Post: #67

(10-14-2015 08:26 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 02:31 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Western protestant culture was likely the least accepting out of all cultures in the world.

I don't think non protestant Western cultures more accepting of homosexuality than protestant ones. South American cultures don't seem to be that accepting either.

Gay men up until the 1800's were pretty much a fact of life. Although it was under the covers, so to speak. Gay is not bad. It just isn't our thing. Brush them off. Whatever. It is only when "the movement" becomes "politically correct" that offsets the balance of nature and family and hierarchy. Tax break coz you fuck up your ass? Fuck off. I will tolerate you but I won't give you a bigger slice of the pie because of it.

Post: #68

(10-14-2015 02:31 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Not true, Afghans have their dancing boys, Thai and South East Asians have huge numbers of gays and trannies, Pacific Islanders have long standing tranny traditions, forcing the youngest son into it, India too have trannies and the Ottoman empire languished in pedophile homosexual behavior and probably would still in that entire region if not for stricter Sunni islamic changes.

Yes, they exist as they have for thousands of third-world-years. And, are they controlling the media, changing their countries laws to fit their perversions-du-jour or jailing straight men for disagreeing with them?

Thats what I thought.

Post: #69

(10-14-2015 01:20 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 12:55 PM)germanico Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The push towards "gender fluidity" is backwards Third World-ism,

Try touching another man's penis in any third-world-ism and get your teeth kicked in for free.

Yes, its a step back, but normalized effeminacy and feminism is a product of the first world. Our agrarian ancestors got it right the first time around.

Homosexuality amongst supposed heterosexuals is very widespread in India and the Muslim world. I heard it occurs in SE Asia too.

They are gay. In denial maybe but gay none the less. The excuse I have heard is their only option is to fuck their grandmothers, so better to fuck boys on cold nights. Why no fapp?? It works for the rest of us.

Post: #70

(10-14-2015 09:50 PM)rpg Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 01:20 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 12:55 PM)germanico Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The push towards "gender fluidity" is backwards Third World-ism,

Try touching another man's penis in any third-world-ism and get your teeth kicked in for free.

Yes, its a step back, but normalized effeminacy and feminism is a product of the first world. Our agrarian ancestors got it right the first time around.

Homosexuality amongst supposed heterosexuals is very widespread in India and the Muslim world. I heard it occurs in SE Asia too.

They are gay. In denial maybe but gay none the less. The excuse I have heard is their only option is to fuck their grandmothers, so better to fuck boys on cold nights. Why no fapp?? It works for the rest of us.

Please don't bring up fucking your granny. You'll just give the Salon writers ideas.

Post: #71

Am I missing something? I've never heard this term used once.

I find this whole idea hard to believe.

Post: #72

(10-14-2015 10:00 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Please don't bring up fucking your granny. You'll just give the Salon writers ideas.

This. General of the Left, Peter Singer, has already been on a public TV show panel discussion on which he calmly questioned the immortality of a woman having oral sex with a dog. The depravity of these people is limited only by their imaginations.

Post: #73

They're just throwing words together. Take a masculine word and throw some gay innuendo shit in it, then get all the stupid women who read Salon to start spreading it around.

Bromance
Manscara
Guyliner
Bromosexual
Dildude
Bronytail

I googled all these words and they exist in someone's gay world. All these stunted people think about is dicks all day. They sure can't shut the fuck up about us.

Post: #74

The author doesn't realize she risks destroying the modern construction of sexual orientation altogether with this article.

Quote:Again, this is the progressive myth that “homosexuals” — as a category of people — have been oppressed for millennia and it is only the modern West that has recognized and stopped that oppression.

In actuality, the “homosexual,” “heterosexual,” and “sexual orientation” in general are modern Western social constructions (which is not to say that these categories are not experienced as real). Both religious and secular academics have made this point, while anthropologists, sociologists, and intellectual historians have documented the cultural variance in conceptions of sex, sexuality, and gender. Even contemporary queer theory proposes a social constructionist account of same-sex identity and sexuality in general. (And academics like Joseph Massad go even further in arguing that the hetero/homo binary and Euro-American conceptions of sexuality in general are often forcefully imposed in an imperialistic way on other cultures and colonized peoples who, naturally, do not share these Euro-centric categories of “sexual identity.”)

As far as Islam's “oppression of homosexuals,” we should note that classical Islamic scholars did not even have a conception of “heterosexuality” let alone “homosexuality” (as was also the case in other cultures, including Europe up until the late 19th century). In Islamic law, what is impermissible is simply anal intercourse between two males and other male-male (as well as female-female) actions done with sexual desire. These sexual norms were on the books for centuries, despite the fact that same-sex activity did occur in Muslim-majority lands throughout history. Even though people were engaging in same-sex activity, they did not self-identify as “homosexuals” or as a separate category of people that could have even become a subject of systematic oppression.

So which narrative is more plausible?

1. For millennia across hundreds of different cultures across the globe, “homosexuals” — as a distinct, identifiable category of people within any given population — have been subjugated and repressed, and only the modern West of the past forty years or so has had the clear-mindedness and bravery to recognize this subjugation and “emancipate the homosexuals.” The modern West, after all, is the most enlightened and moral of all peoples of all times, so it should come as no surprise that they would be the first to “discover” what literally 99% of humanity throughout human history was too stupid or too cruel to see.

2. For millennia across hundreds of different cultures across the globe, people have experienced the full gamut of sexual desire. Different cultures regulated the expression of those desires in different ways, but the satisfaction of same-sex sexual desire was almost universally prohibited on the basis of robust theories of human nature and sexual morality. Then the Enlightenment happens, religious and non-Western notions of human nature and moral reasoning are deemed “unscientific” and eventually discarded, effectively unmooring cultural practice from the grounding of tradition or moral principles embedded in a larger ethical view of human meaning and life. Sanction of same-sex acts continues for a while due to cultural inertia, but little by little, attitudes change. What used to be moral deviancy is recast as a “psychopathological disorder” and then, finally, as just another normal, acceptable facet of a person's “sexual orientation,” until “homosexuality” is recognized as such and no one can see why the “homosexual” should be constrained by “archaic” sexual mores.

To me, it is far more plausible that current views on same-sex behavior are the product of changing cultural attitudes that have been dressed up in the language and conceptual framework of emancipation. The alternative view, as expressed in the first narrative above, is nothing more than an ethnocentric, self-aggrandizing myth based on historical revisionism and a marked disdain for conceptual rigor and consistency.

Source: Debating Homosexualtiy (This is a defense of the Islamic position on homosexuality, but it's worth checking out if you have any interest in the topic)

The modern world distinguishes desire for intimacy with men versus with women. In contrast, the Islamic, Greek, Roman, and other civilizations identify the primary natural urge for males as the urge to penetrate, while the female urges to be penetrated. This is why you can see some Arabs who will continue to deny they are gay. Because they continue to maintain the traditional male role as the penetrator. The dude whose taking a dick in his ass has more trouble denying he has an issue.

Post: #75

(10-14-2015 04:20 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  ...
All of them are the standard affectation of intelligent, critical thinking whilst blindly-taking at face value what a 'smart person' has just told them, and repeating it that you get in the 95-115 IQ range that makes up Media, Psychology and Gender Graduates.

I'm increasingly becoming convinced of two things:

1) Non-Stem University Graduates can be convinced of anything, if they believe it makes them look intelligent.

2) The rise of marginalised voices makes me understand the cultural importance of keeping them marginalised: they are mentally-and-emotionally-damaged, and want to destroy the society that correctly identifies them as broken and dangerous.

Frankly you can convince the STEM graduates in the 130+ IQ range just as well, but there are greater limitations of course.

The madness going forward of Gender, feminism, "fluid sexuality" etc. - you can forget about trying to convince them. But there is propaganda designed for the smarter crowd - they simply inundate them with countless bullshit studies, books that have as references always the same recurring few sources and then each other, "respectable" scientists believing in one theory etc.

The problem of course with the smarter crowd is that the pure madness like Gender stuff can not be taught effectively to them and there is always the risk that one of them will turn on you when he finds out that he has been cleverly misled.

You can observe it clearly in the Climate Change crap (Nobel price winners calling out the scam as well as world-renowned climatologists) as well as with various medical scams (many MDs starting to combat some dogmas and widely accepted practices - among them quite a few Nobel price winners). So essentially given enough motivation those highly intelligent servants of the lore are by far more dangerous. Those men would become even more difficult to control if Red Pill were taught to them at an early age. Religion and the Beta state keeps many of them in line (here often the feminism light being taught in Christianity now).

That is why they always have to control money, politics and media at the very top.

The lower level dregs like journalists, non-STEM "researchers" - they can be fooled to believe in almost anything.