Homosexuality

What does it imply? What is implied by it? What is it?

For that matter, what is sexuality?

It seems that it's just another form of valuing, just one that will logically always be extraneous to the main evolutionary currents.

I mean, we could seek for particular deviations from the normal human or animal constitution, but then we'd be abandoning the idea that life just happened to happen like it did. It's just possible, and thus it occurs.

As a node, it touches a great many biospheres. Sexual ritual is a constitutive part of pretty much all identities, which are human relations in themselves, and to shift it so harshly from an equally harshly imposed discipline of specificity in ritual can mean many things. It seems to me that it springs from a deep, preexisting incongruence with ritualistic identities common around such people, usually due to some really fucked up thing in their childhood. It has historically driven people to secretive, complex lives where a lot happens. One would venture to guess that all great artistic movements have had a good number of homos at their forefront. These days, though, it has become such a strong political movement, or counter-political, because the system-resisting aspects of it have become very relevant to all unsatisfied members of societies, members who have increasingly good footholds in the Marxist struggles. It's worth remembering, with homosexuality as with marihuana, that it is the second of three classes which gets uncomformist. The first classes are in charge and the third ones don't have time or energy to give a shit.

Sexuality is identity, which is communication. What can I do with you? Within some two or three minutes I already know much of the answer.

It is not that homos are weak so they get abused and develop a weak identity, it is that they get abused so they get access only to weak identities. In the era where Jesus really dies and it really becomes up to us to deal with weakness, we have so far chosen to take ownership and protection of the weak. Those who never had Jesus in their lives get not to care sometimes, and this is healthy for societies. What isn't healthy is Jesus zomby people, who do care but still want to expect some supernatural force to take care of it.

There is a closeness between the homosexuality and marihuana identities of struggle. Both weak extrovertedly, but strong introvertedly. Both fuel for the arts and reasons to be disliked a priori. Both conscious choices of breaking codes and recieving forbidden knowledge and secrete pleasure.

There is much to be admired in homosexuality. They haven't always been fighters, but they have always been artists.

Like sexuality, all elements of identity, which can also be reduced to identities themselves, are perceived in these religious languages as things themselves. This gives the useful idea of separation, of this and that. More to the point, there is no separation like this. Each identity is a chaos of fadings-into and interfadings, as if movement in 5 dimensions. Sexuality is not quite within everything, but it can be used almost at will and has been. The question is not quite "is the violent moment sexual?" but "what is the difference between the sexual and violent moments?"

Capable wrote:

What does it imply? What is implied by it? What is it?

For that matter, what is sexuality?

It implies that there is no such thing as the "norm". Perhaps that a so-called deviation from evolution is not a deviation but simply a building upon something more or the other side of the coin. Perhaps it is an equalizer.

What is implied by it - that evolution will proceed as it will.
Sexuality is the instinct to will to live to create and even to die.

Quote :

There is much to be admired in homosexuality. They haven't always been fighters, but they have always been artists.

I would dare to say that many have been fighters. And many have NOT been artists. Our sexual leanings/inclinations do not make us either wimps or warriors. The wimp or the warrior derives from the heart/the spirit and the genes. But perhaps it might be our upbringing also, the way in which we have been coddled or allowed to grow and to become self-determined creatures, which accounts for the individual whom we are...and are still becoming. There has been much to admire in many "individuals" - gay or otherwise.

To make such a statement as you have above, diminishes them. A gay person is equally as individual and unique as is a straight person. But there may be a few who are happy that you feel such admiration for them just as there may be a few straight people who are happy that you admire them too.

Homo sexuality...Sexuality presumed and then miraculously abandoned because...life...sort of happens.
Like digestion.

What does it matter how or why it evolved or what purpose it serves when we can do without it?

What this forum needs is a thread like "What are you doing?"

Gay is a way for one to own one's sexuality in a more intense and novel way, to associate the sexual instincts as reward and pleasure with something more under one's control -- oneself. To be sexually attracted to the same sex is a by-product of this basic identity shift; one identifies oneself with one's own gender. This is done because such an identification internalizes one's sexuality: the object of the sexual instincts (in most cases, other people of the opposite sex) becomes associated in a way where this object is brought into a person's own control and remains always present in them in their behaviors, thoughts, speech, mannerisms, feelings and motives. Thus a form of control as ever-present release of suffering/frustration, and therefore an inability to ever really be let down sexually. A person thus learns how to gain a degree of sexual reward just by being themselves, through how they act, speak, etc. The subtle differences produce a small amount of background sexual self-satisfaction, like masturbation except less intense and more omnipresent.

Homosexuality is more about the psychological identity and mitigating stress and feelings of lack of control than it is about satisfying an instinct for sexual release and power. This is akin to children who develop addictions to masturbation because it gives them pleasure and a release from an uncomfortable and painful family situation; perhaps there is constant fighting or abuse going on, in which case masturbation and homosexuality both give respite from this.

In the latter case of homosexuality the negative sentiment and the frustrated motives/desires are partially mitigated by a state of sexual confusion, a turning of the focus of desire and pleasure-reward upon oneself. Once this occurs then, secondarily and as a consequence, one begins to develop sexual attractions to other members of the same sex. The confusion has taken over. Of course this "confusion" is a de- and re-territorialization of the typical (base) sexual feeling and excess, not some kind of "immorality". But it would be interesting to explore in greater depth the consequences of this basic confusion and reversal, with respect to all relevant facets of the individual.

I think this might be accurate for male homosexuals, but I know some lesbians for whom the opposite seems to be the case. They seems to desire nothing more than to deny the given of sexuality. When it is embraced momentarily it expressed like an act of hatred and contempt.

Then again I know lesbians with wholly different inclinations.

Homosexuality is a genetic mutation - an unfit and parasitical one - which increases when sheltering permits uncontrolled reproduction, in this way propagation compounding mutations which are never culled out of the genetic pool, using natural processes.

If homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, because female homosexuality is part of the female sexuality - females being sexual in a more profound way than males are - is beneficial to the nihilistic system, because it produces effete, psychologies, which will not challenge the abstraction of institutionalized masculinity.

Hyper-masculinty, and females pretending to be like males, in but a (re)action to this diminishing masculine energy.
One overcompensates, and the other pretends, taking on the symbolic appearance of maleness, while remaining feminine in psychology.

I was riding through the city the other day and heard an urgent, very effeminate voice talking into a phone. What I caught was just this: "Nobody dares to say it, but Michael Bolton..."

I realized that in this man's universe, there is a fact about Michael Bolton that represents a controversy of great weight, a controversy on which everyone has an opinion. Somehow I saw with great clarity that gay men are in general ultra obedient to power, and find their rebellion and self-assertion in very inconsequential forms of controversy.  But then this is the case for most humans.

By the way, we are all amalgamates of genetic mutations. It speaks for itself that the mutation that makes a gay person does not have as much chance of procreating as straight mutants.

Fixed Cross wrote:

By the way, we are all amalgamates of genetic mutations. It speaks for itself that the mutation that makes a gay person does not have as much chance of procreating as straight mutants.

No shit Sherlock? 
 

"Not as much chance?"

Homosexuality has to contradict itself to reproduce itself...otherwise it relies on parasitical strategies or on technological methods.
On its own it has zero chance...it is unfit in the evolutionary sense.

If sticking a penis up your rectum is not for you a disgusting thought, then who am I to judge you?
I could not care less.

In nature homosexual displays are used for particular reasons and within particular circumstances.
Dominance displays, stress relieving processes where internal conflict is avoided, within social groups where beta-males are included rather than expelled by the alpha-male....a redirection of libidinal energies when resources, particularly females, are in short supply.

Sexual instinct itself has no "proper" object toward which or in the presence of which it releases itself. The impulse to excessive and then release of feeling that defines sexuality is its own entity, an instinctive one, which is made us of in the intermix of individual and society with the consequence of, sometimes, causing procreation. If you think the "purpose" or "function" of sexuality is to cause procreation, you would be very mistaken.

And homosexuality is very much passed on genetically regardless rather or not individual homosexuals procreate (which often enough, they do)-- whatever amalgamation of genes gives cause for tendencies to homosexual development can be passed on passively or actively, partially or completely, as is the case with all coherent genotypes.

The need to feed, which is what sexuality is the evolutionary adaptation of, also feels a need it has to satisfy.

To eat one has no other purpose than to maintain self.
The frenzy of sexuality has no focus, but it does evolve to reproduce the genes.

The organism need not know why it eats or drinks...no more than it must know why it goes into a state of sexual frenzy wanting to release energies within a particular otherness.

If you think otherwise then you are a fool, and a Modern.

In my view sexuality is an adaptation of feeding, and it continues to display the same feeding frenzy and the same displays...right down to kissing and its exchange of food ...between mother and child or between social companions, such as in canines.
It evolved later and so had to adapt certain chemical inebriations to make it possible. Its newness on the scene of survival strategies also explains its fragility...how a slight hormonal imbalance can cause it to become dysfunctional.

Sexual instincts does have an object...and that why a well-rounded rump and breasts become its object/objective.
In simple animals, simpler minds, the object/objective need not be projected far, for it lacks the abstractive ability and the imagination.
Its projected object/objectives are more immediate, in the time/space sense.

This is why immediate gratification and shallow perceptions are the hallmark of a stunted and/or inferior mind, or a less sophisticated one.

Libido is the intuitive, instinctive, automated - genetically - focus of Will upon an object/objective.
No understanding is required...in fact understanding would inhibit its force.

Sex is blind need, evolved to be automatic, stimulated by particular triggers...like emotions are.

If the wiring get fucked-up then the reason why heterosexual reproduction evolved loses its focus.
The organism is unfit.

My opinion:

Lust evolved through natural selection as the impetus to procreate. Thus those who find themselves sexually attracted to the opposite sex are to be considered fit in this regard. Consequently, homosexuals as well as other forms of sexual dysfunction such as pedophilia and zoophilia are genetic dead ends in that they represent a physical and/or emotional urge without any purpose or evolutionary advantage, beyond the immediate of social bonding rituals. Moreover they represent a maladaptive sexual mutation which encourages behaviours contrary to the species/group's own advantage.

The confusion of "love" with "sex", or spiritual or emotional connection and respect with base animal drives expresses a deep lack of appreciation for human relationships and perhaps an inability to form lasting examples of such.

An individuals own psychology expresses itself through their sexual practises. One becomes excited by domination, or being dominated. But whereas normally this is played out in the gender roles, in sexually dysfunctional individuals they adopt the roles interchangeably (thus representing a degeneration of type for their respective gender) or project them onto others in the case of pedophiles or zoophiles. Sex moves away from it's purpose and becomes another expression of socialization, a masturbatory pastime for one or more undifferentiated individuals. Eventually it becomes boring and extraneous - overcome, surpassed, transgressed. It is entertainment consumed in the same way as television or fast food, an ugly reflection of this civilisation's decline.

The "threat" that such dysfunction poses to a society is that increasing levels of unfitness will cause the whole to collapse under it's own inability to support itself. As a society is built upon the strength of its males, and preserves itself against competing societies with these males, their degeneration and effeminacy is directly linked to the health of the society.

Today we live in an age where such symptoms of decline are everywhere.

Fixed Cross wrote:

It may be a cliche, but I'm pretty confident that someone who makes a big point out of homosexuality being low is a closet homosexual, that is, he feels that his genes are being threatened from procreating if he is not extremely intolerant towards this tendency. This is not an absolute.

This reminds me of the woman who when confronted with the fundamental differences between the genders, immediately redirects into the personal, the emotional commentary - misogynist, sexist, wife-beater etc. A black would do the same with Race; whitey jealous cos a nigga is stealing his women or something.
For a fag, it must be because one is secretly also a fag and in denial. There's a sort of confirmation bias going on here: either one is indifferent to homosexuals, or one is a homosexual.
It's not an argument. It's irrational flailing about. I mean by the same logic a distaste and opposition to the practice of pedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia must also suggest a personal motivation of self-denial, no?
I liked the caveat at the end of "This is not an absolute." when in fact this is exactly what you are suggesting - an either/or dichotomy.

To develop this point beyond your level; do you think it's possible to view the effect sexual dysfunction has on a society and then be able to perform a value judgement on that? Do you think it's possible to have a negative valuation of sexual dysfunction without possessing that sexual dysfunction?

Perhaps we could extend it further: do you think it's possible to have any sort of negative valuation towards anything without also indulging in self-denial, self-hatred or sexual dysfunction? Or are you suggesting that all negative valuations derive from these psychological conditions?

Does that then mean that a positivist is uniquely possessed of health? Or that by definition health means positivity?

...

Have I shown how absurd you are yet?

apaosha wrote:

This reminds me of the woman who when confronted with the fundamental differences between the genders, immediately redirects into the personal, the emotional commentary - misogynist, sexist, wife-beater etc. A black would do the same with Race; whitey jealous cos a nigga is stealing his women or something.

A pseudo-intellectual douche-bag defending his world-view from the encroachment of reality, the last resort, indeed, is this personal assault.

you've seen it on ILP...
I didn't even say anything against this turd, but he drew first blood.
See now, when I rip him a new asshole to go along with the one he's been abusing all his life, I'll be the "bully". and he the innocent victim who was only trying to have a civilized conversation.  

The emasculated turd always need to protect himself form his won condition., getting up his corn-hole is a respectable, loving lifestyle with no implications about his character or his nature.

Nature, you see, produces homosexuality accidentally.  
Sex evolves just because...just s a pastime.

He truly belongs on ILP...home of the modern twat.
A genius Bull-Dyke once informed me that sex has nothing to do with copulation...and so I must take it on faith that sex did not evolve for the purpose of reproduction. It was an accidental lifestyle choice.

When speaking honestly, there must be a latent fear involved...ya see?

By the way, I'm gayer than gay. I'm a flamer.
I luvs dat dick.

It's when it becomes a political statement to consider why sex evolved that dialogue becomes impossible if it is not filtered through the appropriate political correctness.

Perhaps the anus did not evolve to dispose of toxins and it was meant to help with pleasure.
If I say something out of sorts I might be accused of being a latent something or other....fear must be behind my views because...what else could it be?

I think homosexuality rises after a civilization has reached its peak of industrial prowess. For obvious reasons, obviously. Then, I think there are both cool homosexuals and annoying homosexuals. I don't like to see two men kissing. I do like to see two girls kissing.

I would hazard a comment if I were not afraid of saying something contrary to popular morality and modern mythologies that would uncover me as a latent barbarian, indulging in what he dares to declare unfit.

Perhaps what I have learned over the years is that the other will most probably be current, and in his currency one must take care, because currency is about value and what I value most is my time.
I hate wasting it on the dead and buried.
And what are we living in if not the culture of walking dead...zombies?

And why would the dead care about life?
Life is for the living, and for the dead there is the current, the slow tides of time washing their bones clean of whatever remains of their rotting flesh.

To speak of life, of nature, to a cadaver is to speak of light to a blind man.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I think homosexuality rises after a civilization has reached its peak of industrial prowess. For obvious reasons, obviously. Then, I think there are both cool homosexuals and annoying homosexuals. I don't like to see two men kissing. I do like to see two girls kissing.

"Annoying"?
Have you reduced your judgements to ones of taste?

Are you incapable of reading, or did you not notice how I describe how and why homosexual displays appear in social species other than man?

If I were to say that bestiality and paedophilia are also unfit, from an evolutionary standpoint, and how both behaviours can be witnessed in other social species, would a retard, like you, accuse me of being a closet paedophile or one who secretly indulges in animal sex?

Are you a moron or just a degenerate modern?  

How perfectly you fit into the ILP.

lols

GoatMan wrote:

Have you reduced your judgements to ones of taste?

Reduced to taste?

How fitting.