Gay

We must now have an honest discussion about gender and sexual orientation.

So “being gay”, what does that mean? It means one is confused about one’s own sexuality. What does it mean to be “confused” about this? It means that the sexual instincts and hormonal responses associated to sexual attraction have stopped functioning properly and are in some way damaged. Gay people have statistically higher instances of having been sexually abused in the past, incidentally. So what does it mean to have damaged sexual instincts and hormone responses? Just that whatever biological and associated psychological processes in the body and mind which are connected to how the body and mind produce a feeing of sexual attraction have now become unable to function properly and no longer produce a feeling of sexual attraction in the presence of the correct stimuli.

We also have instinctual and hormonal responses associated with the stimuli of seeing a snake, for example, namely ones of fear. If you turn around and see a snake coiled up right behind you, you are going to experience an instinctive hormonal response of aversion or fear. But if I suddenly saw a snake sitting behind me and instead felt a warm feeling of relaxation and comfort, this would indicate that my biological and psychological processes associated to the normal instinctive and hormonal responses to exposure to the stimuli of a snake have become damaged or broken down, or ceased to function entirely. But what is interesting is the possibility that different instinctive and hormonal processes can become confused with one another and switch places; we know that baby giraffes can mind to a Jeep as its mother, for example; we must look at an instinctive hormonal process such as sexual attraction in a similar war, as a natural process with an appropriate healthy functioning but which functioning is capable of becoming damaged or of associating itself to the wrong stimuli.

This is, quite obviously, what homosexuality is. A confusion of the sexual instinctive hormonal process by causing that process to trigger in the presence of the wrong kind of stimuli, just like the baby giraffe who falsely associated a Jeep as its mother (I can’t find info on this but I definitely remember it being something that can happen when researchers leave their cars too often around giraffes in the wild. Let me know if you can find any info about this). In any case, it is obvious that a biological and psychological process of producing a certain instinctive hormonal response in the presence of the correct stimuli associated biologically and psychologically with that response can become damaged, resulting in either the process not producing the correct response in the presence of the associated stimuli and/or producing the correct response in the presence of the wrong stimuli.

So this is the simple, basic, obvious and true explanation for what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is a confusion of the biological and psychological sexual instincts and hormonal processes such that these processes produce a sexual response in the presence of the wrong kind of stimuli, and/or fail to produce the correct sexual response in the presence of the correct stimuli, due to some sort of damage having been done to these biological and psychological processes.

Of course “biological” can just mean genetic, and we are mostly taking about experiences and traumas that end up affecting a person’s psychology leading to this breakdown of the correct functioning of the sexual instinctive hormonal processes; a kind of brain damage.

Supposedly there is no such thing as a “gay gene”, and the idea that people are born gay is scientifically unsupported, https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

Therefore it must be the case, and makes evolutionary sense, that all individuals of the human species are wired by nature to be heterosexual because this is what produces the next generation of individuals in the species; the higher the number of individuals who have a well functioning heterosexual instinctive hormonal process, the better natural selection can function. Homosexuality would seem to give no evolutionary advantage, at least when it comes to natural selection and obviously when it comes to producing children.

If all individuals are naturally (biologically and psychologically) wired to be heterosexual (which just means has sexual instinctive hormonal processes that produce a correct kind of response in the presence of the correct kind of associated stimuli, ie a male having his feelings of sexual attraction triggered in the presence of a female, and a female having her feelings of sexual attraction triggered in the presence of a male) then homosexuality is a form of acquired brain damage which damages these sexual instinctive hormonal processes somehow. Of course it can be argued that there is nothing “good or bad” about being homosexual or heterosexual; I suppose in a moral sense that is probably true, but we are talking about facts here, and it seems appropriate to call homosexuality a form of acquired brain damage (or perhaps more precisely, a “mental illness”) if that is actually what it is, in a biological or psychological sense.

Of course the leftists will counter that it makes no sense to say that one kind of biological or psychological process and reaction is “normal” and another isn’t. Obviously that isn’t actually an argument, since obviously the body and mind have definite functions (given responses to given stimuli, or given outputs to given inputs) and these functions can be damaged in ways that we can understand. If my body stopped being able to digest protein, we wouldn’t try to minimize that by saying that there is no such thing as a “normal digestive process”; if my eyes stopped being able to see the color red we would not try to minimize this by saying that there is no such thing as “normal vision”. So when a person’s sexual feelings stop functioning in the presence of the opposite sex and/or start functioning in the presence of the same sex, which is obviously not what these sexual feelings were designed for doing, why do people try to minimize this by saying that there is no such thing as “normal sexuality”?

The issue of gender identity is an extension on the issue of homosexuality that I wrote about above. Except that it becomes even more clear how gender identity issues are literal brain damage (or “mental illness”). It is one thing to have one’s sexual attraction process produce an output in the presence of the wrong input, it is quite another thing entirely to actually believe or feel like one is not actually the gender which one in fact is. A far deeper confusion and damage must be occurring here.

Back to sexuality for a second, I just thought about how even heterosexual people can have sexual responses in the presence of the “wrong” stimuli, when masturbating; there is no member of be opposite sex present and yet the sex instincts are triggered anyway, so is this also a sign of damage to the sexual instinctive hormonal process? No, because the process remains intact in itself and is simply being triggered by stimulating one part of that process, for example by thinking about a member of the opposite sex or by the sensation of touch against one’s genitals. The larger process as a whole can potentially become active if one part of the process is triggered. This simply indicates that the process itself is highly sensitive and auto-reactive, which is what you might expect from an instinctive hormonal process as fundamentally important as that of sexual attractiveness, since this process is basically responsible for making reproduction occur.

So then is it possible that homosexuality isn’t actually brain damage and is instead a kind of masturbation? Maybe in some cases this is what happens, another member of the same sex is able to trigger one part of the sexual instinctive hormonal process in a person, leading to that whole process activating; perhaps gay people are thinking about members of the opposite sex while they are having sexual experiences with members of the same sex. But if genuine sexual attraction to members of the same sex is present, then there is more going on at the biological and psychological levels and we cannot simply say that homosexuality in such instances is just a kind of masturbarory self-stimulation of the otherwise normally functioning process.

Of course this is all occurring because we are able to program our own instinctive hormonal responses. I could desensitize myself over time to the stimuli of snakes, and recondition myself to feeling warmth and happiness and no aversion to snakes. Likewise each person has slightly different stimuli that trigger his sexual attraction processes, ie we each find different sort of members of the opposite sex more or less attractive. This is likely due to a combination of genetic and experiential factors, namely that our genes probably code for the sexual instinctive hormonal process as per that aspect of itself where the correct kinds of stimuli are coded, probably code for these stimuli within a certain range of possibilities so that each person ends up having slightly different but also generally overlapping features present in his particular stimuli coding for what he responds to as being attractive. The boundaries of the stimuli are varied a little bit, but not so much that the integrity of the stimuli as being the correct type (ie “being a member of the opposite sex of one’s own species”) would be lost.

Now on to gender identity, we need to ask what gender identity even means. What does it mean to identify as a gender? It means to know that you are that gender and not the other gender, you happen to know that you are male or female and therefore you identify yourself as being this same male or female. It is a matter of basic identification of reality.

But what about the leftists who claim it is about “feeling like being a man trapped in a woman’s body” or vice versa? Well for one thing how would a man know what it feels like to be a woman, and how would a woman know what it feels like to be a man? I do not know what it feels like to be a tiger, so I cannot intelligibly say that I feel like a tiger trapped in a human body. Although part of the transgender issue does extend into transspeciesism, as some people claim to feel like being an animal trapped in a human body.

Since a person cannot actually know what it feels like to be a member of be opposite sex, because they have no experience with being a member of the opposite sex, what they must be doing is imagining what it must feel like to be a member of the opposite sex. I can imagine what it might be like to be a bird, or I could also imagine what it might be like to be a firefighter or some other occupation; we can imagine just about anything at all. But just because I can imagine being a firefighter doesn’t mean that I can intelligibly claim to be a firefighter trapped in a writer’s body, nor simply because I can imagine what it might be like to be a bird can I intelligibly claim to be a bird trapped in a human body. So the transgender person is imagining what it might be like to be a member of the other sex, and then based on this is making the non-intelligible claim to actually be a member of the opposite sex “on the inside”.

Furthermore and just as problematic is the fact that simply because one feels something strongly does not mean that one is in fact that thing which one is feeling. A more reasonable person with transgender feelings would say, “I feel like a member of the opposite sex, I know what it feels like to be a member or the opposite sex, but just because I am able to feel this way and have this knowledge of what it feels like to be a member of the opposite sex doesn’t actually make me a member of the opposite sex”. An even more reasonable person with transgender feelings would admit in addition that just because they feel like they are a member of the opposite sex and just because they feel like they know what it feels like to be a member of the opposite sex doesn’t actually mean that they really do know in fact what it feels like to be a member of the opposite sex.

It may not be possible to correct the damage that leads to homosexuality, perhaps once the sexual instinctive hormonal processes are damaged or distorted enough to produce homosexual attraction and/or to fail to produce the correct heterosexual attraction then it is simply not possible to fully reverse this damage. It may also be the case that such a person with damage to their sexual instinctive hormonal processes would choose to keep using those processes as they are, damage and all. Either way I am fine with people acting out their sexuality however it happens to be for them, provided that they are not harming others and that their sexual partners are consenting adults. Just because we correctly understand that homosexuality is a form of brain damage to a person’s normal sexual instinctive hormonal process doesn’t mean that we need to deny people who are so damaged the right or ability to act out however their sexual process is for themselves. But we should nonetheless still be trying to reduce or cure instances of this damage as much as possible, excepting the cases where adults freely choose not to be involved in having their sexual damages attempted to be cured.

Obviously if there is a way to cure children of this kind of sexual damage then we must be curing them of it. I don’t know if any such ways exist, though. Obviously I’m not really in support of sending gay kids to Christian “straight camps”. But neither am I in favor of hiding the truth from kids or from anyone else.

The truth is that homosexuality is a form of brain damage or “mental illness” affecting the sexual instinctive hormonal processes in the biology and psychology of a person. This is just a fact, it is the truth. What we do or do not do with regard to social issues or policies should at least begin with as many facts as we can assemble.

What about gender issues? There seems to actually be a cure for transgender feelings, at least I have heard of a medication that successfully suppressed these feelings. Maybe therapy or something else would also work. The basic thing to do is to stop lying to people about the issue and start telling the truth. I don’t “hate” gay people or people with transgender feelings just because I want to tell them the truth about their homosexuality or transgenderism. Truth is truth. They can do with it what they like, it doesn’t concern me much so long as they aren’t affecting anyone else negatively by committing crimes or spreading lies, and so long as they aren’t trying to destabilize the larger social cultural space as the leftist activists are trying to do by employing these issues, and the common lies surrounding these issues, as weapons against reality. But as goes for homosexuality also goes for transgenderism, and if an adult who feels like the opposite gender chooses to engage that feeling and act on it, such as by changing his/her name, dress, mannerisms, etc. that is perfectly fine as a matter of being that person’s right to do so, provided they are not harming anyone else. When it comes to children it is a different issue, because children cannot consent and therefore attempts should be made in the child’s best interests for their own welfare as best as possible, which would include attempts to cure the damage that has led to transgender feelings if indeed such feelings can be associated to some kind of damage to whatever biological and/or psychological process produces our “feeling of being a gender”. It should be noted too that it is normal and healthy to imagine why it might be like to be something that we are not, including being the other gender, since this is just an expression of the normal and healthy capacity for creative imagination. It is also important to note thy most children who feel transgender feelings grow out of these feelings by adolescence or adulthood.

So if children take the nature creative imaginative capacity so far as to identify with or as something they simply imagine, then this can potentially be considered normal and healthy. But if it becomes a problem or an obsession or if the child is disturbed by these feelings and imaginings, then obviously we should try to help the child by curing him/her of the obsession or false belief, assuming these are possible to be cured somehow. But what we cannot do is allow our understanding and goodwill toward people suffering with certain brain damage, mental illness, obsessive feelings or false beliefs to become an appeasement of them and of their distortions. We do not tell a psychotic person who believes they can fly that they actually can fly... except maybe if that psychotic person were threatening us with immanent harm and demanding we agree to their worldview, in which case we might indeed state our agreement with their belief despite how we know that belief to be incorrect. I see a similar parallel with leftists today who demand, often under threat of violence of some kind, that others agree to their incorrect worldviews. Most likely these leftists are incoming threats of violence, either directly or indirectly, for the same reason that the psychotic person in the above example might do so, namely as a means of forcing compliance from others because others would not give their compliance otherwise, based on the facts and merits of the matter at hand.

Indeed, we must never appease the lies, incorrect workdviews, intimidation or threats of the leftists or of any mentally ill person, but that doesn’t mean we should hate or despise people who have brain damage or mental illnesses of a sexual nature, especially if such people are able to live out their lives in a manner that does not cause harm to others.

The transgenders can define gender as “how you feel” rather than as your actual gender, but that therefore means they cannot also claim to literally be the other gender which they feel themselves to be, rather they can only claim to feel that way. To make the leap from feeling that way (which of course is actually feeling how they imagine it feels) to claiming to be it, would require explaining how “to be” something can be reduced to “to feel like” it. Probably no leftist or transgender activist has ever done that, or probably ever even attempted to do it despite that their entire “transgender” position (of “I feel like this, therefore I am this”) hinges upon such a claim.

There are animals in the wild that sometime engage in homosexuality. How can we understand this? Perhaps the homosexual members of the species are one that suffered more trauma as children, and their sexual instincts have been damaged as a result; perhaps the fact that certain children are more traumatized, and this tends to make such children less able to procreate successful offspring for the species, means that these children become more naturally excluded from sexual selection and thus experience a severe lowering of the pool of potential mates, triggering a kind of homosexual reversion that could be sustained as an exteriority and peripheral remainder for the species, a kind of catch-all for those members of the species that natural selection has deemed for one reason or another unfit to reproduce.

Again, stimulating any single part of the overall sexual process can end up triggering the entire sexual process itself. If there is an absence of females, for example, then males might have enough bottled up sexual energy that one of them might accidentally rub up against another male's genitalia and suddenly the latter starts fucking the former, because the tactile stimulation by another triggered the arousal of the entire sexual process. Or, perhaps for certain animals like bonobos there is a general weakening or slackening of the boundaries around the coded stimuli appropriate to the sexual impulse. This could theoretically be sustained without degrading natural selection too far, in certain limited situations, for example if it is not necessary to have pair-bonding to raise successful children.

Of course none of this is saying that homosexuality, or even transgenderism, is "wrong". It is simply pointing out the basic facts of what causes these phenomena. What really is homosexuality, why really does it occur? What really is transgenderism, why really does it occur? I am interested in actual causes here. Facts, truths, reasons. We can build every other consequent and derivative thing up from there.

A most fertile topic. Let me start with my objections. 

I have an issue with the notion of correct sexuality. This judgment only applies when we assign a function an telos to sexuality, namely procreation - and of course this is its function. But it is not the whole of its function. It is its most crucial function for without this function it will die out, so procreation is the self valuing core of sex. I don't disagree on this basic level, of course. However now arises this question: is a being solely a function of its procreating? If not, then he may freely assign a non procreative function to his power to experience sexuality as well. If a being is not first function of any process but primarily to its own individual  being, then sex and sexuality may be valued in terms of what sustains this individuality in its self-experience. So as a result, there opens up a world of potential pan-sexuality. 

So, to put it another way: the philosophy of individualism almost necessitates the random eruption of pan-sexual tendencies within society. Because as soon as procreation takes a second or third tier importance below self-experience, the whole of the sexual apparatus can be employed to this much broader end, self-experience. The power of the sexual capacity of the human being is just too great to not become something almost unto itself as soon as external threats are warded off by a society. After all, the sexual powers are so tremendous, that they can easily overshadow most other modi of experiencing oneself, with the exception of being in mortal danger or and certain more complex forms of urgency. 

Now lets look at the fact that homosexual are more likely to have experienced abuse. Sexual abuse is generally not lead to procreation. So what it leads to primarily is -- a deepened self experience. Not a nice depth, not a fertile depth, but a depth nonetheless. And the emotions, like water, seek the lowest point. So homosexuality may be more than a deviation - it may be the main part of a pan-sexuality that emerges as a consequence of certain grave necessities and restrictions falling away and allowing the human being possession of his own body free from the chain of nature that brought him forth. 

To cut it shot for now, I think Ive made some points we can discuss, I will observe the obvious, that in the case of an individual breaking free of the chain of procreation through some pansexual self-experience, the influence of such a person on children can be quite fatal, can sere of itself, even as an example of what is possible, as a form of abuse that in turn causes the child to find itself drawn away from the semiconscious wish to procreate, and into the conscious wish to exploit his beings in terms of sexual experience separate of procreation. 

I find myself hereb able to confirm a hypothesis I made long ago based on my experiences with gays that homosexuality is a form of narcissism. A form of turning away from society, company, family, nature and culture, a way into the abysses of the ego. And speaking for myself, Ive had one experience of homosexuality, which I turned to as a consequence of many years of bleak abuse at the hands of a certain unspeakably sick part of my family, which had, since the death of my cousin, found a way into my life through the machineries of pity. 

Ill conclude therefore that heterosexuality is truly of life, whereas homosexuality is merely of being. It is a phenomenon that uses life, but is not itself useful to it - it is technically more akin to death than to life. Death in the sense of the atomic, premolecular world. It is the collapse of human being into the vast sum of its grounds causing what is likely a savage type of enjoyment, and the inability, seemingly blissful but an agony of self valuing, to do justice to all these grounds.

In the end, homosexuality turns into a revenge of the entity upon itself, a punishment for its inability to simply be so as to actually integrate the enjoyment.  Homosexuals are generally joyless creatures at heart. A superficial joy and an abysmal anguish are common to most gays and as far as Ive seen, few will deny it.

Hell yeah now we’re getting somewhere. Let me think on this for a short time.

I didn’t mean to say that using sexuality for anything other than heterosexuality is “bad” or “wrong”, necessarily; however we need to be honest about the fact that what natural selection has created as a biological and psychological process of instincts, hormones etc. leading to sexual arousal as well as other things like emotional attachment and self-regulation, neurotransmitter release, etc. that if this process is then being used in a way that fundamentally conflicts with how it was designed to be used, we need to ask serious questions as to whether or not this alternative use comes with some potential costs or consequences.

I don’t really know the answer to that. I would suspect that in some cases, gay people are able to engage their sexuality in homosexual ways without any negative reprocussions. While in other cases there are negative reprocussions. And there negatives are not simply due to “social conditioning” or bigotry in society or whatever, I mean actual negative harmful effects stemming from the fact that a specific series of biological and psychological process is being deliberately thwarted or subverted or undermined or applied in ways it was not designed for. But yes I agree with you that once survival in terms of reproduction is not as important (although I could argue that even today it is still very important, as important as it has ever been) then expanding the ways in which sexuality can be used doesn’t seem so detrimental or risky.

I’m also still entertaining the idea of homosexuality as excess, either cultural excess or biological-genetic excess. Regardless, we should learn from Rome about what happens to a civilization when these alternate forms of sexuality become directly valued on par with or higher than normal heterosexuality. I say “normal” not in a moral sense but only because this is how the sexual process had been designed. We are fair to assume that to use a process that was designed to be used in a certain way in a different way than this designed way, comes with at least some potential risks.

What you say about narcissism is really interesting, I used to see homosexuality as a kind of self-sexualization because of how a gay person ends up being sexually attracted to their own body type (male or female), characteristics, and sex organs. It seems obvious that it is at least reasonable to think that developing sexual attraction for one’s own type of body and sex organs is a form of self-sexualization, or “self-love” ie narcissism as you said. I like how you phrase it with the depths of the self and how emotions flow along the lowest pathways in those depths. Gay therefore as a turning inward and away from society, from “heteronormativity” lol, and toward self-gratification. Obviously nothing wrong with that, I feel an impulse to turn inward and away from society and other people often enough myself. And as that one Ancient Greek said, “if I could cure hunger by rubbing my belly I would be counted among the wisest of men”, lol.

So a narcissistic excess that rings society as a remainder. Also the natural experimentation and expansion of biological and psychological processes. Such expansion and experimentation will sometimes prove to be beneficial and sometimes prove to be detrimental, and that’s exactly how it has to work. I’m not interested in being pro or anti homosexuality, I really don’t give a shit either way but I certainly take notice when the civilizational rational constructs on which our society and culture and ideas and relationships and history are based are being openly and viciously attacked by lies and rhetoric under the false banner of “LGBT”; I cannot help but think that gay people themselves must be being hurt the most by how homosexuality has been so grossly politicized.

Narcissists aren't infrequently quite brave. Perhaps indifferent on a biological level as there is less risk, and then facing the abysses of being with less historical dogmas and more taste for the weird. I can't escape the impression that Oscar Wilde was a brave man even among Englishmen, who aren't known to be especially cowardly to begin with. Personally I know a few gays very personally and cowardice is not among their features. Strangely, bisexual people do tend to be scarity-cats, perhaps they only revert back to heterosexual tendencies to escape their true homosexuality, which by all accounts guarantees a traumatic youth. Ok so here is the strange part. I think that some people actually are born feeling like a man in a woman body, a feeling which occurs to them the very moment they realize they don't have a penis. So if they have a brother, pretty quickly. Penis envy is pretty serious. Apparently. 



So this whole deal of lack, and thus biological envy, - well I guess thats why they invented the Bible.

Absolutely. I’m not putting down people who feel homosexual at all. I want to liberate them from the shackles of PC leftist authoritarian lies.

People with legit trans feeling too. But hormone therapy or surgery for children is absolutely wrong in every case.

Leftism is simply evil. Ie it is anti valuing, anti reality. And enjoys this.

Fuck all leftists.

Women are naturally bisexual, or tend naturally toward bisexuality. Probably has something to do with the ancient earth-mother-cults and an atavistic expression of primitive orgiastic lesbianism. So, when a woman strictly engages sexually only with other women, she is making a conscious decision to avoid men, because naturally she could utilize either gender for sexual gratification. Why would someone consciously choose not to participate in romantic engagements with one or another gender when they are attracted to both? Likely from pathology, and some kind of contempt for men. And that is just what is expressed by strict lesbians, at least in general, as opposed to women who express their natural bisexuality.

With men, observe the two classes within which homosexuality was most widely expressed; the ancient philosophers of Greece and the Olympian athletes. The philosophers worshiped their own dialectically engorged and inflated minds in the image of fellow genius' minds. And the Olympian worshiped the image of his own comically engorged and inflated body within similar bodies.

For women, strict same sex attraction comes from a pathological contempt for males, and with men, simply a kind of externalized narcissistic impulse.

Maybe women are naturally bisexual because their sexual instinct hormonal process never needed to refine itself so much as to narrow down upon the opposite sex only, because that was not necessary from an evolutionary perspective. A man who fucks another man is wasting his seed that could potentially be used to further the gene pool, while a woman who fucks another woman is doing... nothing really, evolutionarily speaking. She doesn’t waste an egg by fucking a woman, only by not having any sexual with a male within a 28 day cycle.

So basically from an evolutionary view, women can fuck other women and it has no adverse effect so long as that woman is also fucking a man. The same is sort of true for men except that a man who fucks other men is still wasting that potential seed even if he is nonetheless also fucking another woman too. But in reality and as far as I understand, there used to be a lot of panssxuality in human history, with one alpha male having multiple female sexual partners and the offspring were raised in a more communal way than they are today. This makes evolutionary sense; it’s like primate tribes: the dominant males who express the best genes by being the most successful in a fighting, survival, and social cooperative sense become alphas on top of the social pyramid of the tribe and have access to the most females, because then the male gets to sexually select the best females. He fucks many of them and thus maximizes chances of his genes spreading, and theirs too. I realize many animals are monogamous, but evolutionary pressure seems to have preferred a more pansexual sort of approach when it comes to primates. Whatever sexual instincts we have are basically just primate sexual instincts.

Sexual instinct has this aspect to it where there exists encoded in the genes and psychology somewhere a certain range of potential stimuli which are able to trigger a response from the sexual instincts, arousal. Basically whatever processes occur to produce arousal in the presence of such a stimuli is what “sexual insrinct” means. And this range of potential stimuli could theoretically extend to include anything at all, trees, water, other animals, feces, whatever, but obviously natural selection narrows it down to a fairly tight group “members of the same species” and even tighter within that “opposite sex members of the same species” and then still tighter within that, “hot opposite sex members of the same species”. But within those tiers it is possible to move around a little bit and tweak one’s own sexual instinct potentially arousing stimuli.

When I was saying that homosexuality is damage to the sexual instinct process I meant that this process of tightening the range of potentially arousing stimuli is the base system and in pure homosexuality that base system is either absent or not functioning adequately to its own construction. Obviously there exist some men who are not sexually attracted to women at all, but I consider such men a kind of excess or even “perversion” but not in a moral way, just in the way of how in such men the sexual instinct process has managed to reverse its symbolic attractiveness powers for some reason, either genetic or environmental or both. This is a perversion simply because it is a perversion of the existing sexual instinct architecture without which we as a sexually reproducing species would not have survived and without which we will not survive into the future, including the fact that a certain minimum number of individuals of the species must be heterosexual for that species to flourish by natural selective process. Ie you need a large enough gene pool and you also need enough children being born to exceed the effective replacement rate. Outside of that it doesn’t really matter if someone is sexually attracted to people of the same sex, or to trees or whatever else, but from the perspective of what sex is, what it means and how-why it exists at all, such excesses and outliers are just that, excesses and outliers.