Wednesday, October 16, 2013

The Lambda Factor

I know I’m going to take some heat on this post, particularly from my more-conservative readers, and that’s . . . OK.  I’ve given this subject a lot of thought – hell, I’ve been working on this post for about a year now – and after much deliberation I felt it was time to do, partially in response to a comment I got today.

I want to talk about homosexuality.


That’s not an easy thing for a straight man to do, particularly in the Manosphere, but I think it is important, if not vital, that this issue be addressed reasonably, rationally, and cogently, not with a lot of over-the-top hype one way or the other.  

For the record I’m proudly straight (and really good at it) but also unashamedly “pro-gay”.  I have plenty of gay and lesbian friends, always have, and I’ve supported gay-marriage rights and the protection of gay civil rights pretty consistently.  As I am not an adherent of a radical monotheism that proscribes homosexuality, I have no good spiritual reason for objecting to gay marriage or to the existence and prosperous, happiness-pursuing efforts of anyone based on their sexual orientation.

Indeed, for the most part I like gay people.  Gay men in particular – not because they are gay, but because they are men. 


And that, gentlemen, is the important factor here.

I understand both the squeamishness and the religious prohibition against homosexuality in many faiths; and while I don’t share it, I do understand that in a pluralistic society it is important not just that everyone have the freedom to do what they will, within reasonable social guidelines, but that freedom implies the freedom to dislike, for whatever reason at all, anyone in particular.  Just because I don’t agree with your position doesn’t mean that I think you automatically “hate” gay people.  That’s an overblown and frequently overplayed position on the Left.

But putting aside such emotional responses to homosexuality for a moment, I invite the Manosphere to consider the current state of gay-straight relations from another perspective.  The Lambda Factor is invaluable to the evolution of both the Manosphere and the re-definition of masculinity on our own terms.  Allow me to explain.

Before the 1960s, homosexuality was a crime in most jurisdictions.  Then the famous Stonewall Riots happened in 1969.  If you aren’t familiar (and not many straight folk are), the Stonewall Riots occurred when a local police department tried to raid an underground gay club . . . and the gay men there fought back.  Since that point, gay men have been resolutely fighting the system, both legal and social, that would make their desires and orientation a crime. Lesbians and transgendered folk have joined in, but gay men were the leaders of the early LGBT movement.


Why is that important?  Because “Gay Liberation” – the social and legal acceptance of gay men, in particular, as open and functional members of our society was, perhaps, the biggest boon to masculinity during what was the period of its greatest decline.

Now, that’s going to make a lot of fellas shake their heads in confusion.  After all, traditional ideas about homosexuality are rooted far more in what sets a gay man apart from a straight man than what binds them together.  Yes, there are definitely low-masculine, high-feminine men out there who challenge our ideas of masculine behavior.  There is a part of gay culture where the raging, effeminate queen, as embarrassing as he is to more mainstream, masculine-acting gay dudes, will always be the symbol or stereotype of gay men.

But while the stereotype of the highly-effeminate gay man is imprinted indelibly on our culture, the fact of the matter is that overly-effeminate gay men are likely the minority of the homosexual community (but it's hard to get a good metric on that).  Most gay men I know – and I know a few – are not swishy, overly-sensitive, and secretly desire to be women.  In fact, most gay men I know are, in every other way, just like the straight men I know.  They just dress better for dates, have more sex, and prefer Muscle and Fitness to Maxim. 


But apart from their predilection for hairy man ass, they’re just . . . dudes. They read all the other masculine publications out there, they just tend to skip over the straight parts.  That doesn't make them less masculine, it just places their masculinity in a frame where the slavish devotion to femininity our masculine drive is tuned to is absent.  They are men free to be men without the advice or consent of women.  

You see the raging metropolitan queen as gay and can spot him across the room.  But the bearded dude in the flannel and the pick-up, who spends all of his time camping, hunting, fishing, and going to NASCAR races?  He's just as gay, but he hasn't let the stereotype of his orientation define his masculinity.  One of the more amusing times I've had at a redneck bar was watching a Duke student come in, get hammered, and start shooting his mouth off about "faggots".  

Turns out two of the beefy gentlemen at the bar were gay, on a date, and also half-drunk.  About the fourth time the idiot says something degrading the masculinity of all gay men, the gentlemen took exception.  Apparently, it doesn't matter how straight you are, if you piss off a 250 pound redneck about where he chooses to put his dick, it doesn't matter if he's gay or straight, it's gonna be your ass.  Two rednecks?  Who possibly saw the act as a pair-bonding moment?  

I'm hoping that getting his ass kicked by two gay rednecks may have encouraged that young man to reconsider his ideas about masculinity that evening.  I certainly hope so. If nothing else, it taught him a valuable lesson in discretion and moderation.

Why is this important?  Because by legitimizing homosexuality, the Stonewall Riots and the Gay Rights movement allowed a masculinity unfettered by sexual preference to develop.  In other words, it allowed openly gay men to express their masculinity without the needs, wants, or desires of women entering into the equation. 

It’s a subtle point, but a vital one.  Why?  From an intellectual perspective gay men allow the rest of us a “control group” of male sexuality, containing within a wide range of masculine expressions, one which refutes or repudiates a lot of the feminist sexual ideology.  After all, you can’t say “society makes straight men do this” without checking to see if society (which has mostly ignored gay men, culturally speaking, except as two-dimensional stock characters to be trotted out for laughs) also makes gay men do it, too.

Case in point: the oft-touted feminist maxim that “men only go after hot young girls because our rape-culture tells them that’s the ideal they should be shooting for.”  Feminism has always taken issue with the masculine preference for youth – and I think we all know why – but blamed it squarely on “the Patriarchy’s” efforts to take power away from older women.  If it wasn’t for our screwed-up youth-worshiping culture, the feminist myth goes, men would get just as hard over saggy tits and cottage cheese thighs as they do perky tits and a tight ass.


But if “the Patriarchy” is the one dictating what men should and shouldn't be attracted to, culturally speaking, then one must also assume that a group like Gay Men, who “the Patriarchy” has traditionally had an antipathy toward, would therefore not be subject to the same “artificial rules” that straight men are.

But it turns out gay dudes like young stuff, too.  A lot.  

The term “twink” is used to describe the young, vital gay man in the prime of his youthful sexuality.  If men in general were not naturally attracted to youth, then this shouldn't be the case.  But the fact is dudes like youth and find it sexually attractive, regardless of sexual preference.  There is no “evil Patriarchy” telling gay men to lust after young hunks – they just do.  As much as the rest of us lust after young babes.

Further, apart from their sexual orientation, gay men share far, far more in common with straight men than they do women of either orientation.  Gay men can get drafted, falsely accused of rape, creamed in family court, and accused of sexual harassment, just like straight men can.  

(Funny aside: during my long clerical career, one gay man I worked with – not in the closet, but not exactly public about his orientation – got accused of sexually harassing an allegedly batshit nuts female co-worker who was not aware of his orientation.  Hilarity ensued.  So did a lawsuit – against her.  For intentionally "outing" him to his co-workers.)

But that’s not all.  Science tells us that around 10-15% of the human population is gay or bisexual in orientation – the exact number shifting depending upon just how you determine whether someone is gay.  That means that for centuries closeted gay men have been marrying women to cover their sexuality.  In most cases the wives in question were not aware of their husbands’ activities, or if they did learn, they turned a blind eye to them and just started drinking.

But post-Stonewall, men who determine their orientation is gay do not feel the same social pressure or filial compulsion to marry a woman. That means that 10% or so of the "eligible" men – who were often more handsome, dapper, and had bigger dicks than their straight neighbors – are no longer on the straight marriage market, for good or ill.  That’s a good thing for everyone . . . except women who want to get married. 

Suddenly a healthy chunk of the dudes who looked great on paper (except for their passion for fellatio and anal sex) were no longer available in the hetero-SMP.  That forces the straight women out there to contend directly with us straight men, without the hope of finding a sensitive gay husband to fulfill their dreams of a high-status sexless marriage.  Gay dudes are marrying other gay dudes now.  Straight men are not marrying straight women . . . not nearly as much, anyway. 


Feminism has attempted to co-opt the gay rights movement as another victim of “the Patriarchy”, and it can’t be argued that the oppression and rejection gay men have felt in the past (and still struggle against in the present) was motivated in large part by traditional social prejudices.  But that doesn’t make them natural allies of feminists, just as it doesn’t make them natural allies of the black civil rights movement.  Once you get past the marriage rights issue, most gay men seem to line up on other political issues more or less in line with straight men.

Gay men (who did not realize their orientation until late) get divorced, they lose custody of their kids, they get fired and discriminated against because of their gender, just like straight men.  Gay men have lost the same economic power that straight men have.  Indeed, the vast majority of their non-gay-oriented interests and issues are identical to those of straight men.  If it wasn’t for the current political climate on the Right, I think we’d see a flood of gay men supporting male issues and interests.  The very existence of the Log Cabin Republicans bears this out.

And if you think YOU get pissed off about your taxes going to support entitlement programs for single mothers, you should just hear a table full of angry gay men discuss the subject.  Ouch.

Apart from political expediency, there’s not much reason why gay men and feminists should find common ground, philosphically.  Remember, it was gay men who refuted radical Third Wave feminist Andrea Dworkin’s insistence that deep throating was unnatural and inherently dangerous, and that anal sex was an unhealthy perversion that could not be practiced without imperiling your health.  

When a raging queen stood up and offered to demonstrate just how easily it was to deep throat in front of a crowd of other gay men, it pretty much deflated Dworkin’s anti-porn argument.  Indeed, the comparatively large amount of gay porn out there belies the argument that “straight men only look at porn because they were taught to”.  No one taught my gay friends to look at gay porn.  No one pressured them into watching young, muscular, good-looking dudes have sex.  They figured that out on their own without any help from the “evil patriarchy”.


Deriding gay men in general for a lack of masculinity is disingenuous and unfair.  Some of the most masculine men I know are gay.  In fact, I could argue that no one understands masculinity – what it is and what it isn’t – as much as a gay man.  They are attracted to it as much as straight men are attracted to femininity.  If the definitions of masculinity are restricted to purely heterosexual standards, not only are you being intellectually dishonest about the subject, you are ignoring and alienating some powerful allies in the struggle against feminism.  And some damn good caterers.

Gay men see the ugly side of feminism even more frequently than straight men do.  While rarely put in the same “evil patriarchy” category with us, gay men suffer the same broad brush feminism uses to paint all men . . . and when they are in groups with women who know they are gay, these women frequently and foolishly decide that being a gay dude is JUST like being a straight woman.  

This amuses the gay men to no end.

It’s often been said that the slutathon that is Sex In The City is the attempt by straight urban women to live the fabulous gay lifestyle of gay urban men: easy sex with strangers, focus on interpersonal relationships instead of romantic ones, and an obsession with quality footwear.  

The problem is that only gay men can live a fabulous gay lifestyle . . . because they’re men.  They don’t have ticking biological clocks, fears of pregnancy or aspirations of the traditional Happily Ever After in the suburbs.  They don't care about failing their mother's expectations or what their friends think if they start dating a much younger dude.  They just want to get their dicks sucked after a delightful date with an attractive partner – something I think every man can understand.

When women try to adopt the fabulous gay lifestyle, they run into the issues that have always been a factor in heterosexual society, including judgment and social expectation.  A gay man who has had three dozen partners in the course of his life isn’t considered particularly promiscuous not because he’s gay, but because he’s a dude.  A straight woman who does the same doesn’t have the same excuse.  

A gay man who doesn’t marry by the time he’s 35 isn’t in danger of a life of sterility and a lonely dotage surrounded by cats, he’s just entering his prime.  He's a silverback, often with a more mature masculinity that attracts younger dudes by the dozen.  A gay man who goes from one relationship to another every six months isn’t unusual – a woman who does the same is quickly going to get a reputation for being unable to commit. 

And if you every want to hear some truly misogynistic shit, sit around with a bunch of drunk gay dudes and discuss the women in their lives.  Only lesbians can be as judgmental . . . but they don’t have the vicious streak of an irate queen.

Nor do gay men universally identify with women before men – quite the contrary.  The most effective Black Knight I ever knew was a middle-aged gay black man who just didn’t particularly like working with women.  Not because of sexual preference, but because he preferred the quiet efficiency of an all-male team to the chaotic cluck-fest he saw in female-dominated departments.  When the female HR director tried to get in his face about it, he was quick to hit back, brutally and viciously, with a deep understanding of the regulations and policies to refute her assertions that he was being sexist in his operations. 

When it came down to it, the HR director couldn't come up with anything more concrete than “it seems you have a poor attitude toward your female co-workers, and some people have been saying they’re uncomfortable with it.”  While a straight dude might have backed down, this Black Knight went on the offensive:

“Show me a goddamn metric of what I ‘seem’ to be doing, give me one concrete example of me discriminating against a woman, let me hear one employee demonstrate where I have been improper in my conduct in this office, bring me one instance of me violating company policy concerning gender discrimination, or get the fuck out of my office.  I’ve got a department to run, and all this ‘seeming’ and ‘feeling’ doesn’t do a goddamn thing to help me do my job.”

HR steered clear of him after that.  If he had been straight, it would have been his ass.  It was one of the best temp jobs I’ve ever had.  Not only did we get our work done without undue interruption, it was a congenial and productive environment.  And no, he never hit on me.  Even when I look this good.

It is time for the Manosphere to back off the homophobia and start recognizing our legitimate allies in this struggle.  Gay men are not the enemy.  They don’t want to see every man turn gay.  They don’t even want to encourage more men to be gay, necessarily – they just want to ensure that it is safe for men who are gay to be so without undue hardship.  (The rest of us could stand to work out more . . . eye candy . . .)  Their alliance with the Left is almost solely based around the single issue of gay rights, and once gay marriage and military service is off the table most are happy to get involved in issues of more interest to all men.

This just scratches the surface of what is a deeper and more meaningful subject, but it was time this was discussed in the Manosphere.  Pushing away 10-15% of our brothers, just because they get more blowjobs than we do betrays the 21st century goal of defining masculinity as inclusively – and as unabashedly male – as possible.  Gay men have powerful perspectives to add to the Manosphere, and have seen the ugliest faces of feminism in ways straight men cannot conceive of. 

They have been victim of a double-bigotry, treated with mistrust and hostility from misguided straight men and organized religion, while they have also been co-opted by women often without their consent as “one of the girls” . . . when they are, in fact, decidedly not.  The attitudes and perspectives of most straight women toward gay men can be obnoxiously cloying.  Fag hags abound, and despite their genuine affection for the gay men in their lives, they rarely accord them the masculine respect they would a straight man.  In fact some of the most misandrous shit I’ve ever heard has been from the mouths of stalwart straight female friends of gay men. 

As I said, I do understand the general hesitancy of straight men to embrace the idea of gay men being inclusive of masculinity in general, but as uncomfortable as that makes you, approached objectively it’s a net win for masculinity, over-all.  It doesn’t make you gay.  It doesn’t even make you a tiny bit cuter.  But it does give you a position to advance to in discussions with ardent feminists who often conflate masculinity and heterosexuality to our detriment.  If they say something rotten about the masculinity of “rape culture”, look for a cognate of the behavior or presentation in gay subculture.

Or, to paraphrase a struggling blue pill friend of mine who’s trying to talk his otherwise-liberal wife into anal sex, who objects on the grounds that it is objectifying, debasing, and degrading, unnatural and a violation of both biology and moral values: “Well be sure to mention that to the millions of gay men who take it in the tailpipe every day, honey.  Like all of those gay friends of yours you’re always so supportive of.  And by the way?  I hear they swallow regularly, with no serious adverse reactions.”

That's my opener.  Your perspectives?



52 comments:

  1. Fantastic and deeply thought-provoking!
    Need to think on this more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gays don't bug me, but they get to be in the progressive coalition agsidt people like me. And they choose it overwhelmingly. I'm not their enemy, but damn near all of them are mine. So I really don't care if gay men (other than Awesome Jack Donovan) get hit by a truck.

    They can wait for Nancy Pelosi to come help. Not my problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if so many would chose as they do if there was more welcome in other coalitions.

      Delete
    2. That's my point, exactly. While the Democratic Party is clearly a party favoring women's interests, specifically, the Republican Party does not in turn favor men's interests, specifically, largely because of their rejection of gay men (and abortion, but let's keep to one topic at a time).

      Delete
    3. Also: you're a prog. You get the giggles about somebody getting beaten up by multiple guys for having unpopular views. You LIKE to see the outnumbered guy get his teeth kicked in. You made that story up -- if that's a real redneck bar, Morgan Freeman's saintly idealized cardboard stock character is a representative elderly black man (dear prog: clue time, he isn't) -- but it says a lot about you. None of it is very pleasant, but that's the way it goes.

      How about somebody walking into a real redneck bar and getting his ass beat for saying progressive nonsense? Cool with you? Or somehow less amusing?

      Or are you so progressive that you aren't capable of turning it around and putting yourself in the other guy's shoes?

      Anyhow, it's not fair to gays, but men who don't want to act like men need to be told that's not OK, and we need to make it stick. Not a lot of gays want that deal, so the hell with them. Civilization is worth it. Sorry. We don't get to have everything we want in life. It's called adulthood. Everybody pays admission, and it's not often fair. You don't get that, you're not a man. Having a dick is necessary, but very far from sufficient.

      Next you'll be telling me to let Chastity Bank tell me how to be a man. You're not on our side. You're a prog with some special interests, but like all progs, you always put progs first and men last when the chips are down. Imagine a situation, hypothetically, where you had to -- HAD to, hypothetically -- choose between gays and straight men. Don't tell me, ask yourself: could I trust you then?

      So why should I trust you at all?

      Delete
    4. Chastity Bono, f*** autocorrect.

      Delete
    5. Honestly, I don't give a damn if you trust me or not. I'm here pointing out some observable truths. You can decry my perspective because of your own, but unless you can refute what I've said . . .

      Look, it doesn't matter if I'm a 'prog' -- I wouldn't be caught dead being called a conservative, for manifold reasons -- particularly the fact that conservatives are so terribly eager to jump down any ally's throat if they aren't completely happy with their conservative credentials. Conservatism, as such, is dead as a political force in this country. Liberalism isn't, but it's corrupted.

      So forget about politics. Investigate what I've said and make up your own mind. That's all I'm asking.

      Also, it really did happen, and yeah, if some "prog" was stupid enough to go to a for-real-though redneck bar and shoot off his mouth, I'd stand there and watch him learn a valuable lesson in discretion as well. In fact, I have. It wasn't germane to this story, but I've seen it happen, too.

      The redneck bar in question was (and is) a concrete block honkeytonk in North Carolina called the (I can't make this shit up) Local Waterin' Hole. They do live music there on the weekends, and it's one of those "local color" spots that refugees from New Jersey (the kind you can convince to order just one grit . . . because they might not like more than one) like to go to to prove how tough they are. Turns out . . . not as tough as a couple of flannel-wearing gay dudes from Gibsonville on a date.

      I'm not on "your" side? Who the hell gave you a side? I'M on OUR side . . . as I've defined it. What the hell have you done for the Manosphere?

      Delete
  3. Interesting perspective. I think it's the overly-effete gays that have shaped my thoughts on this situation. More thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Or, to paraphrase a struggling blue pill friend of mine who’s trying to talk his otherwise-liberal wife into anal sex”

    Tell me, please. What kind of man has to divulge the most personal aspects of his marriage with other people? “I’ve been trying to pack my old lady’s fudge for 2 months now, but the bitch won’t unlock the back door!”

    Tacky.

    He should offer up his own ass first. A strap-on will do the job; some guys LOVE prostate action — or so, I hear. Maybe he needs to experience the dubious joy of getting butt-fucked himself so he’ll be gentle should he get the honor of plugging his wife’s “tailpipe."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Tell me, please. What kind of man has to divulge the most personal aspects of his marriage with other people?"

      A guy with a friend who's a Sex Nerd. I know far, far too much about my friends' sex lives, thanks to my profession.

      "He should offer up his own ass first."

      What makes you think he hasn't? If he liked it, that's just going to make him more enthusiastic.

      Delete
  5. MOST IMPORTANT: ****1. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

    Great rhetoric and excellent reasons to support the purpose BUT THE FACT REMAINS: HOMOSEXUALITY.......IS A SIN! There is no excuse, no matter what. God does not like homosexualityIt's Adam & Eve folks, not Adam & Steve.

    From Genesis 2 in the King James Bible ONLY

    18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
    21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
    25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


    (EVERY "modern" Holy Bible is corrupt and frankly can be burned or used anyway you want to dispose of it. Please check out some of these links:

    1. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/300_changes.htm

    2. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/heretics_behind_modern_versions.htm

    3. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/which_bible_can_we_trust.htm

    4. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/complacent_christians_and_the_bible.htm

    5. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm

    6. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/why_so_many_bibles.htm

    7. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/Im_confused_21_different_bibles.htm

    8. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/New%20Age/new_age-riplinger.htm

    God does NOT hate homosexuals. He loves everyone, EVERY SINGLE sinner of which I'm chief BUT He HATES THE SIN, NOT THE PERSON. God hates the sinful acts of homosexual which include all kinds of wicked sexual immorality like SODOMY which is mentioned in this post.

    NOT intended to be disrespectful, contemptuous or prejudiced against homosexuals on any "personal level" by any means but God, Lord Jesus Christ does NOT support this, so I can't under conviction.

    A few quotes concerning the ABOMINABLE SIN of HOMOSEXUALITY:

    Leviticus 18
    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
    24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
    25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
    26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
    27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
    28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
    29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
    30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I expected this, and you've outlined your position thoughtfully.

      But I'm Pagan. Quoting from someone else's religious text doesn't mean much to me. In fact, I'm generally not a fan of text-based religions in general, particularly closed-canon texts. I understand there were pre-industrial prohibitions against homosexuality in many religions, but I'm not going to take Jehovah's stand on homosexuality any more seriously than I'm going to take his stand on shellfish and tiger's milk.

      Delete
    2. Being gay is a sin? So is eating shellfish.

      Delete
  6. Couldn't find any 1950's beefcake art, Ian? lol

    As mentioned above, Jack Donovan and Chuck Palahniuk wrote great books about masculinity, and MRAs for the most part like gay folk just fine.

    Even though interests may align on some issues, I have an intuition that, by and large, gay men will not ally themselves with the manosphere. The gay movement is largely progressive ("Log cabin" Republicans are a small minority - and mocked and derided by other gays from what I've seen) - and the manosphere largely leans towards the reactionary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Couldn't find any 1950's beefcake art, Ian?"

      Actually, I did . . . I'll try to put some up today. I got rushed when I was posting.

      And you're right, the gay movement is largely progressive . . . because there is really no alternative for them, politically speaking. You take gay marriage and military service out of the equation, and their progressive views start to come into context a little more circumspectly. And while the Manosphere does lean towards a reactionary perspective, ignoring this element of masculinity does us no favors. That's why I opened this conversation.

      Delete
    2. re: pics - Wonderfully appropriate as always!

      re: Gay politics - Fully cosign on usefulness of having the discussion - Canada is a country that's had marriage equality for a while now, and there hasn't been any right-ward movement among gays (that I'm aware of) - there may be more to the association then just the importance of solidarity on the "big issues." Even though there's no *legislative* issues here left to fight over, there are still echos of the "culture wars" of the 90's-00's. Also, (I believe) gays are advantaged by affirmative action/diversity hiring policies.

      By the by, it's kind of interesting (in a possibly control-group-y sorta way) how much more prevalent divorce is among lesbians then among gay men.

      Delete
    3. Give it a few years. I think we'll see less and less Progressive activism among gay men as the gay culture in Canada adjusts to marriage equality.

      And I've noticed the spike in lesbian divorces. I don't remember where I saw it, but by at least one study there's something like a 58% chance that not only a lesbian marriage will break up, but that one of the partners will start dating men. Makes you think . . . guess that's what happens when you have "I'm Not Haaaaaaaapy!" on both sides of the equation.

      Delete
  7. @Roe - nice about the lack of beefcake art. A good conversation to start Ian - Sounds a bit stark but seems to me the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Can we maybe moderate some of the bible thumpin'? And for those of you interested in convincing your partners - try Bill Strong & Lori Gammon's "Anal Sex for Couples"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You wanted it . . . you got it. Just took me a while to select the right images.

      Delete
  8. Greatest misandrist I know is my lesbian sister. She's firmly in the men are only good as sperm donors camp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is why I focused on gay men. I have plenty of lesbian friends, but they tend to be WAAAAY progressive, to the point of idiocy. The few non-man-hating lesbians I know are, ironically enough, hyper-masculine bull dykes. The "Home Depot" lesbians, not the "Bath and Body Works" lesbians.

      Delete
  9. Great post Ian and true on all counts. I've worked with several gays over the years and who ranged from ragingly effiminate to a former Marine D.I. In all instances they were just as much targets of feminism as straight men. Simple argument for gay marriage? Why shouldn't gay couples be entitled to be just as miserable as straight couples.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ian,
    You did a great job on this. I like how you made the primary point that we have much more in common between male hetero and male homosexual than any type of females do with either. I have never felt any disdain for the concept of homosexuality or the individuals who engage in it in private. Where it becomes a problem for me has always been the public declarations and exhortations of necessity for civil rights and such. I do not feel that couples that, for instance, have a favorite position of "reverse cowgirl", need to be treated differently or need to have special groups that speak at middle schools, have a special color ribbon, or force their way into community parades to advertise their heroism for engaging in "reverse cowgirl" sex.

    I also feel like if someone was serving in my military unit and wanted to announce to the entire unit that he was involved in a "reverse cowgirl" sexual relationship, I would need to counsel the service member that his announcement was inappropriate and that he should keep his sexual preferences private and away from the work environment. If he refused to comply and continued to openly identify himself based on his sexual practices, I would need to take administrative action to remove him from the unit. In that way, someone who chooses that lifestyle could be said to be discriminated against. Those that support that lifestyle could make a case that he needs to be protected by special civil rights. The only thing is, he wasn't being persecuted for his action. He was being segregated because he chooses to identify himself openly and publicly by a feature that is and should be inherently private.

    I think that your point about homosexuals fervently wanting to be allowed to marry is actually being driven not by a romantic desire to formally express lifelong monogamous intent in a manner that is recognized by society, as much as it is for getting access to the benefits associated with being married - primarily healthcare. Our society still has a few vestigial policies and regulations left over from what are rapidly becoming bygone eras which actually rewarded marriage with financial benefits. That is definitely true in the military. Married service members get paid more than single ones do, and spouses get free health care.

    I think at the root of it, the push for gay marriage was a reaction to lack of access to a particular benefit. If there was no automatic coverage of spouses on employer healthcare, no pay differential for married vs non-married military, no federal death benefits paid to a spouse, no non-working spouse entitlement to social security benefits based on the work history of the earning spouse, I don't think there would have been so much pressure to legalize gay marriage.

    But now that gay marriage is legal, I predict it will accelerate the end of those vestigial benefits. As throughout the rest of our society, people are envious of advantages to anyone else. As less and less of the population are married, and more of the population sees those who are getting married ostensibly doing so for the extra dough they can squeeze out of the public trough, there will be more and more pressure to remove those benefits.

    That will definitely be progress in some people's eyes towards "fairness."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brilliant post.

    Long time lurker on your blog and several others, recently starting writing myself. I've been discussing similar ideological conflicts that aren't apparent in conventional wisdom. I linked your post here:

    http://iparallax.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/the-revolution-gay-men-leaving-the-party/

    I'd be interested to know if you share my opinion on the impact of same-sex marriage's genetic determinism campaign and it's implications for the LGBT-Feminist alliance:

    http://iparallax.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/the-revolution-genetic-determinism-gay-rights-and-the-end-of-extremist-feminism/

    ReplyDelete
  12. thank you for pulling together something that should have been so obvious to me already, having numerous gay friends from years in restaurants.

    proper.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Ironwood, it's AnonymousOctober 16, 2013 at 10:14 PM here,

    Thanks for the reply and to be sure while "Jehovah" is a Name God goes by and it's best to go by a capital "He", the Name Lord Jesus Christ is the Name by which lost, unrepentant sinners are SAVED. I really hope you at least check some of the links I post and skim read for a quick view to get the idea, instead of brushing this off.

    Please give it some thought. If you really study and examine the KJV Holy Bible you WILL find come to the conclusion that the Book is divinely inspired. No doubt. Have you read the uncontaminated KJV Holy Bible? I suggest it!

    The issue here is nothing against "gays" as the "people" but for the wicked, ABOMINABLE, disgusting SIN homosexuality is in GOD'S SIGHT and how the Homosexual Agenda by the Elites are aiding the Feminism disease, Family Courts and other menaces in the overall emasculation of today's young men and the destruction of the traditional, biblical FAMILY. Where are the FAMILIES anymore? Let alone gay marriage!

    Think about the future of the youth of this earth for REAL. Boys have it hard enough trying to become "men" these days and with the single mom households...how will these kids having two MOMS or two DADs take us in the right direction? Kids NEED a FIRM EXAMPLE of the male role and the female role or else they grow up as maladjusted kids and immature adults. Life confirms this. People can say what they want but in life everyone knows these kids are "off" in their social development and a little "messed up" in the head. People deny but that does not change reality.

    See: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Apostasy/ct_homo.htm

    Also see: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/scriptures.htm

    About "gay PRIDE": http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/sodomite_ministers.htm

    1. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/homosexuality.htm

    2. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/gay_tolerance.htm

    3. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/lies_about_homosexuality.htm

    4. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/pederasts.htm

    If things are ever going to get done in this country the right way we need to repent as a nation and come back to God. Really think about it: Our nation under "God"?! Really, really! "In God We Trust > In SATAN We Trust; check out SIN CITY, Las Vegas, Nevada!

    People may say they don't believe in God but the World obviously does and they HATE Him! Of all the "religious leaders" in history nobody normally curses in Buddha, Krishna, Confuscious or Mohammed's names but EVERYONE says "Oh My G--d" in VAIN, "God-d----", "Jesus F-ing Christ! "H--- S--t!" and ANY other reference concerning God and His Beloved Son, Lord Jesus Christ. My friend, that's proof enough to know the Lord Jesus Christ is the right ONE. I dare say someone curse in Mohammed's name and all the Muslims get riled up ready to kill but say in Jesus's Name, "nah, not a big deal".

    I think you have some thoughts to reflect over because we are living in the End Times as explained in Revelation of the KJV Holy Bible. Our American "Rights" if anyone even knows them anymore are disappearing and we are only kidding ourselves if things will get better. It won't. The Stage is being set for the Antichrist to rule over earth under a One World Government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a couple of notes:

      1) I've read the Bible. In fact, I've read 14 of the 18 versions of the Bible, as it is known, including the KJV, the Catholic, the Apocrypha, RSV, the Gnostic Gospels, etc. I know the Bible better than most Christians. In fact, it is my knowledge of the Bible and Semetic monotheisms in general that encouraged me to find my own way. I could expound about this, but we're going to have to agree to disagree.

      2. My religion does not accept the concept of Sin. That tends to be a fetish of radical monotheisms. Especially sexual sins. In my religion, sex is a sacrament. Therefore "sinning against God" sexually is impossible -- "All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals." Sure, you're going to think I'm a Satanist, but I remind you that Satan is a Judeo-Christian divinity, not a Pagan one.

      3. I rarely take "The Lord's" name in vain . . . because a) he's not my lord b) it's disrespectful to Christians to do so and c) it's inappropriate to swear by other people's gods. I don't capitalize Jehovah's personal pronoun because other religions do not extend that same courtesy to mine. I'm teaching my children similarly. We say "Goddess!" when others would say the J-word, and fall back on our individual and appropriate deities for the occasion, e.g. "Sweet Brigit!" (my patroness).

      3. I don't hate the Christian God, I'm just not a fan. And most of my problems have more to do with his fan club than anything else. In essence, Jesus and I have agreed to see other people. I'm cool with that, and I don't fear for my immortal soul . . . because I believe that the Bible and its associated texts has not provided a cogent and believable case for heaven, hell, souls, etc.

      4. I work in porn. I like porn. In fact, all human cultures have some form of porn. The erotic impulse is the basis for the Lifeforce, and my vocation (and my interests) have placed me where I am for a reason.

      5. Let me break it down to you like this: I'd rather be a good, happy Pagan than a miserable excuse for a Christian . . . which is what I would be if I tried to go back to the religion. I'm not judging anyone else or even trying to convince them to convert (proselytizing is not allowed in my religion); I just want to live in peace and exercise my religious rights (while I'm exorcising with religious rites). And no, I don't believe we're living in the End Times . . . by my calculations, we've got another thousand years or so before Ragnorak.

      I appreciate your input, but I've had the cream of the seminary crop from three different universities do their best to convert me, as well as dozens of less-educated but no less devout laymen. It hasn't taken. It's not going to. If it makes you feel better, my mother still thinks I'm going through a stage . . . that's lasted almost 30 years.

      Delete
    2. And how *did* we all manage back before King James had a version of the bible made? You understand how *late* that was in history? Christianity has been around far longer without the KJV than with it. The KJV is a translation of a translation of a translation.

      Delete
    3. On behalf of the sane Christians who have a grasp of history, language, social mores, and the basics of human interaction, I apologize for the tl;dr-fest that represents pretty nearly none of us.

      Delete
  14. Ian see Vox relating to this: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/god-is-not-mocked.html

    Without God, Lord Jesus Christ.we have NO chance. What good is it if we win a war and men's souls end up in hell? Come to Jesus Christ first, please. At this point any "physical revolution" against the Oppressive New World Order if futile. We have the numbers but lack the knowledge, experience, organization and are divided by personal "agendas". ONLY the agenda united in LORD JESUS CHRIST will prove victorious for His own GLORY.

    All those stories bible-hating scoffers refer to as "fairy tales" are going to be in for a true RUDE AWAKENING when they witness God pouring His Wrath on this earth like never before and never again on the evil of this world. Yeah, there's been a lot of time without God's direct involvement and people are gonna be SHOCKED JUST SHOCKED when they realize the Scriptures of the King James Holy Bible were TRUE. 'Course that's if we live to see that day, I truly hope I will BUT I hope we all get right with God before that happens.

    Sodom and Gomorrah was our example. When know Hitler's Holocaust; America's holocaust is ABORTION! With MILLIONS!!!! It will be scary. There's info everywhere to research. I think if it wasn't for the FEW good genuine BORN AGAIN believers in this country, God's Wrath would already be on us; we are in the early stages. GET YOUR FAMILY RIGHT WITH GOD EVERYONE!

    If America comes back to God, in REPENTANCE and try to right our obvious wrongs with our wicked society STARTING WITH ALCOHOL, PORNOGRAPHY and our GODLESS PUBLIC SCHOOLS we will get somewhere and probably experience a Revival before the Antichrist takes control. So lets start locally in our own families,

    We need MANLY, GODLY REAL MEN PREACHERS in our Apostate churches PREACHING THE TRUTH and PREPARING FOR THE END!



    My friend if you don't know God from the KJV Holy Bible, you are blind to what the future will really be. Satan and EVIL is a real force and is corrupt at the highest places of society from Hollywood to Politics to GOVERNMENT. And oh boy, you can be sure the "United Nations" will be instrumental in the development of the world's enslavement gathering all people together in a ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT through false philosophies and religions and New Age garbage like what Oprah Winphrey distributes to the undiscerning public. See:

    ReplyDelete
  15. (Continued)

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/oprah-damnable.htm

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/fatherless_america.htm


    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/oprah-exposed.htm

    There's A LOT I want to say but I'll summarize: Pornography is a big cause of men's weaknesses today. Those who support or affiliate with pornography know the temptations it gives weak men or "betas". It's something when people trample someone who can't always see the scheme and call them weak when they support their woes. It's evil. Most men and betas CAN become much better than we're they're at, they just need the RIGHT ENVIRONMENT AND RIGHT INFLUENCES. Instead pornography is a nice retreat for sulking.

    We are all sinners, I don't condemn any one. I can't. I AM THE BIGGEST SINNER! That's self-righteousness that's been beaten out of me.

    I hope people really repent or their sins as GUILTY SINNERS DESERVING OF HELLFIRE so Lord Jesus Christ can forgive them so they become BORN AGAIN in SPIRIT as believers and they won't have too be worry about this mess. Whatever happens here, will mean nothing on the other side. We need to start PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF LORD JESUS CHRIST and SPEAKING OUT AND REBUKING EVIL.

    Too much to say but check out these:

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/evils_in_america.htm

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/evils_in_government.htm

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/disturbing_truths.htm

    http://www.godlovespeople.com/

    http://www.jesusisprecious.org/


    Nothing will get done without obedience to God, Lord Jesus Christ. The solutions to many of our problems are simple but problematic because of conflict with our sinful PRIDE (Washington D.C), GREED (Wall Street), ENVY (Rich & Poor, Jealous, Covetous People), GLUTTONY (Examples?), Lust (mentioned earlier), WRATH (wars, murder, violence).

    NOTHING. NOTHING will get done until we come back to God, Lord Jesus Christ. We can't beat our human frailties and flaws on our own. WE NEED JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!

    Of everything that's been tried our nation has ye to "try Jesus" again. Internet "discussion" is getting old, nothing will change until we get right with GOD FIRST and then everything else.

    Will take work and time, But GOD, LORD JESUS CHRIST is the ANSWER. Will need to follow up on this. Take care and may get back into PRAYER to GOD for our evils and get back on saving our this country and our world for His Glory. Amen.



    ReplyDelete
  16. Lord Jesus Chris IS THE ALPHA of all. He is the ALPHA and OMEGA. Meet the real Jesus: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/tough_love_jesus.htm

    Jesus is THE REAL MAN. THE CREATOR OF THE WHOLE "ALPHA-BETA" CONCEPT thrown around the manosphere. We are all omegas (not even that) compared to HIM. Jesus is the ORIGIN of EVERYTHING. Seek Him and His Knowledge and all matters of life are resolved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All right, since this wasn't intended to be a religious discussion, that's the last bit of proselytizing I'm allowing on this post. Not trying to be disrespectful, just trying to stay on-topic.

      Delete
  17. Glad this post made it out of the closet. =)

    As a scientist, I have to say that the "control group" aspect is interesting to ponder. Making me wonder now, how many gay men are in STEM fields? Could one do a comparison to women in those fields. There is a huge push to fix the "leaky pipe line" in STEM, and correct the "gender imbalance" for these fields.

    I also like your argument about cultural "training" for pornography consumption. Given what I've been told, there is SO much objectification of women in the media, it's surprising there are ANY gay men left. I should tell my far Right friends pornography is just doing the Lords work of stopping the ghey.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks for the article, Ian. I have been anticipating this article ever since you teased it. As a homo guy who got exposed to Jack Donovan's ideas late in high school and early in college, I have been much happier with my life since I realized that masculinity and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive.

    I don't have an exact number of the number of masculine gay guys. We tend to be quiet about it, for fear of rejection by our male friends and persecution by mainstream gays. Ask a queeny fairy what "straight-acting" means and you will get an earful about "self-loathing" and "cowardice." So yeah, we tend to keep to ourselves, and even when we are out to our male friends, our behavior doesn't change, since we typically haven't been hiding effeminate behaviors. But yes, some coordinated effort on your part and ours could go a long way towards shattering the feminist-gay alliance. The sooner the better, I say.

    A thought about gay marriage: I wonder if, somewhere down the road, decreasing married couples will lead to civil marriage being seen as a money-grabbing move by a handful of elite couples who want tax breaks. This, in turn, will lead people to demand that, in the name of "fairness," the federal and state governments stop giving married couples benefits. This will lead to either all couples being given benefits and being considered "married," which would be a bureaucratic nightmare, or to an abolition of civil marriage, which would turn marriage into... a solely religious institution. Marriage would become the sole domain of the very faiths that many secular feminists are using gay marriage to subjugate. So ironic, it makes me chuckle.

    Out of curiosity, you mentioned that you are Pagan. What tradition do you follow, or do you simply mean to say that you are areligious? I myself have been looking into Paganism, particularly European pagan revival movements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks.

      I've been a practicing Pagan for 30 years, now, starting with Neo-Alexandrian Wicca, skipping over Thelema and going into shamanism and eventually druidism. I have about six different traditions that I could justly call my own. I think of it as a spice cupboard. Sometimes you just need more majoram.

      Now . . . go out and start the first Gay Manosphere blog. Don't make me do a spell.

      Delete
  19. Thanks for the respect.

    Sneaky Jehovah's Witnesses usually "Jehovah" when addressing God. However. "Jehovah" is used only ONCE in the whole KJV Holy Bible, so that Name's Not as important as the Name JESUS. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Jehovah%20Witnesses/jw-exposed.htm, http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/name_above.htm

    There is no such thing as a "miserable" Christian in faith. WE ARE ALL SINNERS, NO one better than the other. Even the "most" sinful born again believer who backslides into sin is NO "better" than the most upright of born again believers. In God's Eyes any "righteousness" from man is "filthy rags" to His Comparison. No man is "good enough" for Christ. Come to JESUS CHRIST.

    You no doubt are very knowledgeable but I have a sense that knowledge is clouding your view of the forest from the trees. There is ONLY one (Christian) Holy Bible to use which is the KING JAMES HOLY BIBLE. The rest ARE counterfeits and corrupt texts to fit the agendas of men. I hope you check the links I posted on that.

    Ian, I understand. You claim to be a "pagan", so you must know about Pan, right? Well, the devil has many different guises..... http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/wicca_hellbound.htm


    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/pan_and_crowley.htm

    Ian, I've very sorry but I'm gonna clear up a few things much better in the next post. If you are talking about the carnal 'mainstream image' of contemporary Christianity, that's way off from what true Christianity is abiding in God's Word, the KJV Holy Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here we go (Answers to your numbered post). You may agree or disagree but the truth is the truth even if it's denied:

    1. You said, "I've read the Bible. In fact, I've read 14 of the 18 versions of the Bible, as it is known, including the KJV, the Catholic, the Apocrypha, RSV, the Gnostic Gospels, etc. I know the Bible better than most Christians. In fact, it is my knowledge of the Bible and Semetic monotheisms in general that encouraged me to find my own way. I could expound about this, but we're going to have to agree to disagree."

    There is ONLY 1 version to be read: KJV Holy Bible. The Catholic Church is a "twisted" religion of the Word of God (KJV) to fit with MAN-MADE traditions. Sorry for the Catholics reading this but it's the truth, I have nothing against Catholics but it is a false manmade religion. "Virgin Mary" did NOT stay a "virgin". ONLY the Precious Blood of Lord Jesus Christ saves from sin and ETERNAL damnation in Hell. NOT the Pope, the Rosemary, Confessional, 7, 8 or how ever many sacraments you need to take to be "saved". God keeps things simple (Jesus Christ) man makes things complicated.

    "I could expound about this, but we're going to have to agree to disagree"

    Lets not be so hasty, I'd like to hear what you have to say. Not much of a debate person, but I want to know what's your thinking here instead of the ol' 'agree to disagree' parting tactic.

    "I know the bible better than most Christians". I wouldn't doubt that, but what's it say about unbelievers and vain minds seeking after their OWN lustful desires? That's a matter of honesty, JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY WAY.

    2. You said, "My religion does not accept the concept of Sin. That tends to be a fetish of radical monotheisms. Especially sexual sins. In my religion, sex is a sacrament. Therefore "sinning against God" sexually is impossible -- "All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals." Sure, you're going to think I'm a Satanist, but I remind you that Satan is a Judeo-Christian divinity, not a Pagan one."

    "My religion does not accept the concept of Sin." What is your religion? Your religion may not prohibit sexual immorality yet you acknowledge God saying 'In my religion, sex is a sacrament. Therefore "sinning against God" sexually is impossible -- "All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals', meaning "I can commit sexual immorality but it doesn't count against me because I don't accept (the Christian) God as my own, so I can't sexually sin against Him"; which does NOT change the fact that since you've read the bible you know that unbelievers are STILL held accountable for their actions to their CREATOR. You don't seem not to believe in God, but choose a "god" of your own liking.

    "Sure, you're going to think I'm a Satanist, but I remind you that Satan is a Judeo-Christian divinity, not a Pagan one."I don't know if you are a Satanist and I don't assume about people. True statement but isn't "Pan" the Pagan "Satan"; the devil has many names.

    (Continuing....)

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mother_theresa_demonic.htm

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/truth_is_fallen.htm

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Max_Younce/Salvation/toc.htm

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/gay_marriage_is_sin.htm

    3. You said, "I don't hate the Christian God, I'm just not a fan. And most of my problems have more to do with his fan club than anything else. In essence, Jesus and I have agreed to see other people. I'm cool with that, and I don't fear for my immortal soul . . . because I believe that the Bible and its associated texts has not provided a cogent and believable case for heaven, hell, souls, etc."

    Honesty here. You don't hate God, you DON'T ACCEPT Him. "Fan club": do you mean APOSTATE churchianity and not Christianity? For jokes I thought you meant the Trinity Broadcasting Network's greedy, scheming "700 Club" http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/cbn_exposed.htm which is pretty much a synagogue of Satan exploiting the Gospel of Christ to make a buck off unsuspecting people. Fits all too well. There is no "Christian fan club" but there is a "Churchian fan club" and they disrespect God http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/CCM/modern_worship.htm.

    CAREFUL with the "Immortal Soul Myth" IT'S DANGEROUS!!! People been getting that heresy from Billy Graham. It's FALSE.

    You've read the bible so you know ever since man fell at the Garden of Eden, he became a dead soul in sin, only physically alive AND dead in spirit (dead soul) which is why a person's spirit (soul) (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/Doctrines/spirit_soul_body.htm) needs to be "born again". Since you don't claim to be a born again believer right now you are alive physically but dead spiritually. Remember, people die 2 TIMES, first is the physical body and second is the spiritual soul death. Everyone is born with a dead soul as a UNREPENTANT sinner but when a sinner REPENTS in faith Lord Jesus Christ your spirit (soul) is "BORN AGAIN" by the Holy Spirit.

    4. "I work in porn. I like porn. In fact, all human cultures have some form of porn. The erotic impulse is the basis for the Lifeforce, and my vocation (and my interests) have placed me where I am for a reason." I used to like porn a lot too, A LOT, my flesh does indeed but now I know how much God hates pornography. The destructiveness of pornography in society is virtually self-explanatory. Taking advantage of the weak, lustful desires of boys and men, girls and women is NOT admirable and then we have the masses of "betas" who live in fantasy land while their persecutors support add to their problems. It's EVIL. The ways of man might be "okay" with man but they are NOT okay with God. You know this. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/pornography.htm

    ReplyDelete
  22. 5. "Let me break it down to you like this: I'd rather be a good, happy Pagan than a miserable excuse for a Christian . . . which is what I would be if I tried to go back to the religion. I'm not judging anyone else or even trying to convince them to convert (proselytizing is not allowed in my religion); I just want to live in peace and exercise my religious rights (while I'm exorcising with religious rites). And no, I don't believe we're living in the End Times . . . by my calculations, we've got another thousand years or so before Ragnorak."

    Only Time will tell, but you can't deny many of the prophecies of the KJV Holy Bible have been coming true and continue to come true. In any case, the U.S., the West and the world will not be remotely the same in a few years let alone a few decades (if we last that long).

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/bible_prophecy.htm

    May God, Lord Jesus Christ open the eyes and the hearts of sinners from deceitful pride and hard-heartedness.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I know a few gays. Gays fit the gay stereotype to about the same extent as blacks fit the black stereotype, which is to say, the great majority fit it pretty well.

    They are slimmer and less muscular than straight males, and less interested in masculine pursuits. If they are drinking a can of beer, which they usually will not, they will hold it funny, hold it in an effeminate way. In short, look gay and act gay.

    They are less honest and less reliable than straight males, and prone to suffer from horrible, and frequently infectious, diseases. You cannot trust a gay, particularly with money.

    The are excessively interested in underage boys. (Which is where the money that you trusted them with went.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You "know a few gays",. Actually, you probably know a lot of gays. You just don't know they're gay.

      I'm not talking out of my ass, here. I work in porn marketing, and the demographics for each of our market segments are very, very well defined -- it's how we make our money. So knowing who we're selling to is vital.

      In our gay division, we know what the "average" sexually-active gay man is like . . . and he's far from the stereotype you present. Sorry, but the facts on the ground just do not stand up to your observations.

      And that's the problem. Straight men think they "know" gays, when in fact they know their own stereotypical ideas about gays. Talk to a few gay men -- rank-and-file gay dudes, not drag queens or leather bears -- and you'll discover that I'm correct. Or if you can find evidence -- evidence -- to the contrary, please present it.

      Delete
  24. "not because they are gay, but because they are men. "
    Saw a TV show featuring a gay couple, one with HIV. In the interview with the uninfected one, he said in reply to questions about condom use and whatnot: "Of course! My health is my responsibility."
    My responsibility. These are men, it's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Ian,
    First time commentor here. This was an excellent article. The first gay man I ever met was a fellow Marine, who was one of the finest I served with.
    1. I'm surprized by the amount of religious replies this post got.
    2. You live in NC? That is awesome! I am in Charlotte.
    3. In yout opinion, do you think the MHRA movement suffers from our extreme members? It seems feminists use our commentators against the whole group.
    4. Do you think that Gay Men are more promiscuous than straight men? Can that not be dangerous?
    5. As a Man that works in Porn, how does one get into writing for it? What do you think of men that abstain from it, and the benefits they claim about giving it up?

    S.roth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,
      Just a point you made there: feminists use your extreme members' idiocy against the whole group because they ARE the whole group. Look at Mr. Ironwood. He's working his little fingers to the bone, going to the very limits of reason, stopping at nothing to ensure that everyone knows how awful women are.

      Also, sex. Men everywhere are homeless, but screw that. Sex is life. Sex is death. Sex is God.

      Delete
  26. 'The problem is that only gay men can live a fabulous gay lifestyle . . . because they’re men. They don’t have ticking biological clocks... '

    Really? You yourself said that gay men just like all men are attracted to youth and beauty, so the preassure on gay men to look young and handsome is enourmous compared to stright men where you can pass for attractive with status and other tricks while in the gay world everybody looks at you as a piece of meat.

    But I agree with some points you made, gay men are the living proof that men by nature are highly promiscuous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just as women are equally highly promiscuous; they just seem to hide it better.....or as has been the case lately, are more open to masturbation by mechanical means as a regualr substitute.

      Too, don't forget a big premise of feminism is bringing this promiscuity out into the open and celebrating it.

      Delete
  27. First of all, if ever,ever started to wonder where other men put their dicks would buy several bottles of champagne because finally I could be sure that I had no more pressing problems.

    Then again, 10-15% seems a tad much, dont you think?

    Thats like everyone who ever sucked a cock, including the ones who turned away from it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mental health professionals have long understood that sexual dysfunctions are not inborn traits, but are in fact deep-seated compensating tactics that the psyche uses to repair trauma. Look at the history of how homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders by the APA, and you'll see that there was nothing scientific about it - it was the same pc agit-prop that has driven every other societal ill. Mental health professionals that have continued to work to study and treat sexual dysfunctions - go to NARTH.com - are all agreed that homosexuality never comes from an healthy place.

    I get that you're not a Christian, so I won't quote the Scriptures at you. But I would tell you to consider the weight of the *unanimous* position of moral philosophers, whether Pagan, Jew or Christian, that has always held homosexuality to be something deeply wrong. This is not "wrong" in the petty sense of "against the rules;" rather, the whole reason why things are against the rules, is because there is something dangerous and broken about them. The common, modern notion that the Greeks, Romans, etc., thought homosexuality was "fine," is just wrong. The Greeks and Romans barely tolerated a narrow range of homosexual acts, which were always considered emasculating and shaming for the submissive partner. The idea of two grown men being "partners," would have provoked a violent reaction from them.

    All in all, my thoughts would be this: there is a reason why all the sages and philosophers have thought that this was a problem, and why all the religions have thought the same. Your anecdotal observations, while they reveal that there is a spectrum of "most to least unhealthy" forms of homosexual identity, should not hold more weight than serious study of the topic over the past half-century. These two things: the weight of scientific evidence that homosexual behaviour is a dysfunctional form of self-reparation, and the weight of all moral and philosophical thought (the great thinkers of the ages have not all been simple victims of "bigotry" - this is a civilization-destroying opinion), should challenge you to consider your opinion afresh in light of these banks of evidence.

    Now, as a final word. You say that Conservatism is a "dead political force" in today's society, as though that meant it was not worth serious consideration. I would say that there is a reason men have this new phrase, "the red pill," to describe the fundamental disconnect from reality in modern society. If modern society is "blue pill," and liberalism is the active force while conservativism is the dead one, that should tell you something.

    What? Well, I used to identify as gay. Because I converted to Christianity when I was a teenager, I came into conflict with the religious teaching on the topic, vs. my subjective experience that homosexuality was a defining feature of my self, and therefore, necessarily, good and God-given. I realized that I needed to sort this issue out, if I was going to be a Christian. Long story short, I went from being exclusively attracted to men, to being far more attracted to women. I still experience occasional homosexual attractions, but they are fewer and less potent. In fact, the different nature of the two attractions affirms for me that one is healthy and the other essentially a cipher for the real thing. The moral of the story? I don't care if conservatism is "dead" today. There's a reason it's dead. It's because Western civilization is dying. Conservatism is about truth, not expedience at the moment. Conservatism set me free and lifted me out of the world of feelings and constructed realities, which are the only things the left has to offer as substitute. No thanks. Leftism may be more "alive" today; that's precisely the problem.

    Just my three cents' worth.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Read this on a link from Instapundit, immediately thought of this post.
    (and sorry for dredging up one so old, but this post is one of my favorites.)

    http://www.yourtango.com/experts/drs-ruth-schwartz-michelle-murrain/why-do-lesbians-have-higher-divorce-rates-everyone-else?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    ReplyDelete
  30. Soooo, let me check my notes....no-one ever is attracted to older people....gays are irate queens, mmhm....lesbians, bisexuals, trans people etc. don't exist....uh-huh....oh, and women are bad at everything, are stoopid crybabies and acquire a gravitational forcefield at the age of thirty-five that only works on cats. Right. Gotcha.

    ReplyDelete