Not that I went there much anymore, but it seemed like one of the first anti-nonsense subreddits.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (94)
sorted by:
Dilate.
You know, when I realized that the left is full of coping retards whose worldview is just confirmation bias, I was hoping that the other side would be different. Instead it's turned out to be exactly the same, with different prejudices.
You are partially correct: I enjoy being able to provide my nieces and nephews with opportunities that their parents can't afford. Statistically my genes are already represented in the new generation.
You are quite retarded, though, to imply that a man's worth is based on reproductive success. If that's the case then some Jamal getting a DNA test on Maury is a better man than you.
Childless men are one of humanity's greatest evolutionary strategies. From the monks who preserved classical knowledge for centuries, to men like Isaac Newton, Nicola Tesla and the Wright brothers. If you type "Western civilization" into Wikipedia, the image for the article is a naked man drawn by a homo, lol. Vitruvian man. I actually expected the 17-foot naked man carved out of marble by the other homo. Let me know if you ever create anything as monumental and enduring as that.
Your evo psych gibberish is hilarious cope. You're talking about evolution based on the obviously false assumption that aversion to homosexuality is a human universal. No research, no critical thought, you literally just made it up to go with what you already believe. So stupid.
Homosexual behavior, not aversion, was commonplace among the ancient Greeks, Romans, Celts, Slavs, etc. Sparta and Thebes based their militaries on it. The universal disgust you describe never existed. You literally made something up and then explained human evolution in terms of the thing you made up. And other retards gave you upvotes for it. The fact that you think statist conditioning to control male sexuality is natural, and spend your precious time defending it, is really sad.
When I was talking about evolution, I wasn't even talking about phenotypic "homosexuality". I was talking about the actual act.
I guess you don't know much about your butt, but you should know that your body doesn't store waste right next to your anus. That section is indeed a conduit for waste some of the time, a much smaller proportion of time than the place where you put your dick is a conduit for bloody chunks of uterine lining.
You can easily learn to voluntarily relax your anus to have anal sex. I know you use the friction against your scar tissue to achieve orgasm; having receptive anal sex is like having an orgasm for the entire time, followed by ten orgasms at once.
If you had a subscription to the right website, I could show you hundreds of examples of men paid to have sex with women on camera, and then paid to gradually explore sex with men. I'll tell you what, straight guys often compare their job to getting fucked in the ass, but I don't think they mean that they had a boner leaking precum the whole time. Then they take money to have sex with women again. It doesn't turn them gay.
There are homosexual men, but the proportion of men capable of enjoying sex with men is much larger. As we've already discussed, you're obviously capable of rationalizing anything you want to believe, so I'm sure you will find reasons to deny yourself sexual pleasure that your ancestors evolved to be capable of. And if that's the case, I guess it's not a big deal that your parents had a doctor cut half the nerve endings off your dick and let the rest turn into a callus.
And it's really fucking funny that we have this global elite, known for psyops and gaslighting, and you think they're glorifying heterosexual men in dresses and drag queen story hour in order to get you to accept homosexual behavior... instead of the opposite.
"Whataboutism" - that's just what hypocrites say when called out, right? If Pride reflects on me, then abortion reflects on you. I'd rather we treat each other as individuals, though.
The notion that homosexuality was accepted was popularized by idle 18th century aristocrats. A similar trend exists today, with modern sentiments being projected onto select sources to defend the notion of social constructivism. The advocates in ancient times where the elites of both Greek and Roman society - ritualistic pederasts; I guess some things just don't change. In Sparta it was proliferated by the oligarchy as to maintain hierarchy - domination. Given literacy rates, the selectivity of sources seldom speak to common sentiment. As is seen in the very different sentiments of some Athenian democratic scholars, who despite their concern of offending those in power, at least cautiously referenced perspectives of the vox populi.
That said, even by pederast standards, homosexual acts where considered the destruction of masculinity - a fairly universal sentiment in the west. The limited tolerance was clearly defined and to be practiced on slave boys not yet men. For any freeman to freely engage in such acts was thought disgusting. For any slave to enjoy the act was shameful/impudent. The notion of homosexual union was absurd. So much of what people regard as "acceptance" was prison rape enabled by social status. Literary treatments considered homosexuality with the same gravity as adultery, which is to say severe. That the limited instances of recorded disdain of the elite, by the commonage, frequently include derogatory references to pederasty is telling. As is the fact that being called a "passive homosexual" was regarded as the gravest of insults. You cite the Sacred band of Thebes. When they fought fearlessly to the last man in defense of their people, they earned the respect of Phillip. So much so that he built a monument and issued a decree to preclude their mockery. Such a death was regarded as the highest honor, yet such protections were necessary because of how poorly homosexuals where regarded by the commonage. And yes, the mentions of a disease, now understood to be Syphilis, are inseparable from the pederasty.
With all that said, I was referring to societal norms that don't celebrate fucking children so long as they don't yet have facial hair - that is, after the arrival of Christianity. I appreciate the irony of that statement given the incidence of pederasty in organized religion. I simply regard a belief system that forbids pedophilia and shuns its proponents as a net win. Finding sources of contempt and disgust from that point onwards shouldn't be hard; Both in regards to its deviation from the "natural order", and in regards to the act itself.
Disgust as an adaptive evolutionary response is established. As is the evolutionary motivation of stigmatization. As are the studies reporting similar alpha-amylase activation when straight men are shown pictures of homosexual couples and rotting corpses. Or that syphilis was one of the leading causes of stigmatization in early Europe. The stigmatization wasn't limited to homophobia, but also xenophobia, see "The French disease." Not universal, but consistent.
I don't support abortion - outside of severe medical complications.
If the content of your post is anything to go by, I doubt that doing so would change anything.