I'm going to do the classic Amarna thing again here and say this thread will only go to stupid places until we reframe the question using new language, because the current terms all come with broken assumptions that set you up to think stupidly.
There's no monolithic 'homosexual' force operating through all known history that through the one definition and logic explains the Siwa Oasis, San Francisco in the 80s, British boarding schools, the eromenos,
'The Great Mirror of Male Love', Yukio Mishima, Kenneth Anger, Oscar Wilde, and currently living teenage enbies with low IQs who are planning to cut off their body parts.
Most important point that was made in the last thread on this subject is that modern 'gay' culture, which evolved into the lgbtq+ faggotry, really looks and works more like a cult than the expression of a human inclination enabled by new social freedoms. The 'coming out' meme could have been taken straight out of some cult's playbook, you present an ultimatum to your loved ones that they either embrace your new lifestyle, and become drafted into the cause as at least non-objectors and often defenders, or they reject the homorevelation, in which case the troubled loved one cuts them off and falls entirely into their new social life and family within the rainbow flag movement and culture.
I believe that most people have the latent potential to find the same sex attractive within them, and it just takes the right stimuli and circumstances to make them realise this. What makes gay culture and our modern notions of 'homosexuality' weird, is that we tell people it's mostly an all or nothing deal and that any trace of this means you're some fundamentally different kind of person to the normalfag mass. This of course serves the gay cult cause brilliantly.
For most of history in most places men have been having sex with boys and each other without this interfering with family formation creating giant subversive religions devoted to non-reproductive sex exclusivity. We could have this too, but our neurosis over whether or not we might be 'homosexual' leads us to exile men to the fag-monolith the moment they find themselves pleased and intrigued by the sight of a healthy younger man in his prime.
Now as for what's actually going on with attraction to men, I think it's the same as what attraction has generally become for almost everybody, which is narcissistically disordered. I don't like that word usually, but here I'm not using it to attack anybody, I'm trying to describe the state I think sexual relations have reached. I think that there's maybe this pure or base state of sexuality where people just have this retarded grug-like desire to have sex with fertile and healthy members of the opposite sex. Maybe people capable of thinking this simply still exist, but I think that most people now have the thing hopelessly tied up with their self-image.
Recently when discussing the homo question someone linked me this old E Michael Jones thing comparing homosexuality to vampirism, and I think he's onto something. Just I'd take it further and say that pretty much all sex is vampiric in nature today by this standard, which I'll quote here.
Quote:“Since sex for the homosexual is essentially an attempt to appropriate the masculinity that he feels lacking in himself from someone who seems to embody it, sex with girls has no purpose, since girls do not have what he lacks. Once it gets construed in this way, sex becomes essentially a vampiric act, It is either sucking the desired object to obtain its male essence, or being sucked for the same purpose. Isherwood makes this vampiric character clear but in a slightly veiled manner when he talks about Bubi, the first object of his homosexual attentions in Berlin: ‘Christopher wanted to keep Bubi all to himself forever, to posses him utterly, and he knew that this was impossible and absurd. If he had been a savage, he might have solved the problem by eating Bubi — for magical, not gastronomic reasons.’
I believe that Jones is fundamentally right that homosexuality desires to fill some kind of perceived or felt lack in the self, but that strikes me as true of the average 'straight' person today too. Really if any kind of sexuality can be deemed 'straight' at all in my opinion it's only the grug-type I described above. I think sexuality becomes a lot more coherent if we expand our definition of 'not straight' to include most people we'd call 'heterosexual'.
Back to Jones, "sex with girls has no purpose, since girls do not have what he lacks." I thinks Jones is stopping short here because he's decided homosexuality is his target. Homos are vampires because they have sex to fill a lack, which is the masculine youth or vigour in their sexual partners. But I believe that most straights are vampiric in this sense too, just what they get from their non-male partners is affirmation. There's no acting out of harmony with natural law or whatever the fuck it is that's supposed to make the average 'straight' less of a degenerate weirdo than the 'gays' today, both groups to me look like narcissistically disturbed weirdos with broken self-images out to build and maintain through constant affirmation a tolerable self-conception through sexual coupling with representatives of their ideals.
Is this the worst thing in the world? Eh, it's not the behaviour of a whole/healthy person, but in my opinion humanity owes an enormous amount of its best achievements to its broken specimens who compensated for their wounded spirits with idealism. I believe that the neurotic affliction I've tried to describe above describes many great artists and thinkers, this phenomena is how we got
'Death in Venice'.
Which leads into the next point I wanted to make, pre 'gay' culture dominance, men neurotically disfigured in this way used to dominate the artistic world. Their plastic and compensatory natures has always lended itself fantastically to the more structured aesthetic pursuits and projects, novels, films, etc. Following the thinking I've attempted to lay out in this post I think that it makes perfect sense to say that Thomas Mann and Yukio Mishima and Lucino Vischonti were not 'gay'. They were anything but that base natural kind of 'straight' sexuality, and their reflective and idealistic approaches to sex led them towards other males, in thought and feelings and actions, but that's just that.
Even in past times and places where homosexually inclined men were able to meet and act more or less freely and form something like cultures, nothing approaching a 'gay' identity emerged as far as I can tell. The renaissance Italians were having so much homosex that the act became known as 'the italian way' and the pre-modernised japanese upper class were writing poetry about the beauty of boys and the high pleasures of male-male sex acts, but at no point do we have people within these cultures believing that these acts are some fundamental expression of what they are in some way which is essentially different to those who do not partake. For most of history male-male sex was just something people did.
I don't consider what I've written here anything close to settling the issue, but I'd like everyone to seriously consider that homosexuality as an act was the historic norm, and that homosexuality as an identity is a weird modern aberration produced by culture.
Also I intend to read the work of Havelock Ellis soon for some insight into pre 'gay' perceptions of homosexual character. If anybody has other suggestions on the subject I'd love to hear them.