Poll: What do you believe is the cause of homosexuality?
You have already voted in this poll.
Genetic factors.*
13.46%
7 13.46%
Childhood trauma.*
40.38%
21 40.38%
Environmental factors (excl. childhood trauma)*
30.77%
16 30.77%
Other*
15.38%
8 15.38%
Total 52 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Homosexuality and Its Causes
#1
The homosexuality thread on Amarna 1.0 was a substantial work and it is an incredible shame that most of the insight contained within is now lost. I've yet to see any posts from that thread make their way into an Amarna archive.

Reproducing all that will be nigh impossible with Amarna II's relative lack of traffic. Still wanted to post this thread to stoke discussion on the subject.

Some relevant topics that were brought up in that thread (feel free to add more and debate upon them if you recall them):
1.) Origins of homosexual behavior -- genetic, childhood trauma, environmental
2.) Varying expressions of homosexual behavior -- Gaetan Dugas vs. J.C. Leyendecker
3.) Congruence (or the lack thereof) between the phenomenon of homosexuality and transexuality
4.) Prevalence of homosexuality in matriarchal (ie. longhouse) cultures vs. patriarchal cultures

Discussion of troons would be a valid use of this thread as well. As far as the zeitgeist is concerned, the two phenomena are stuck together.
#2
AltHype had a line about nurture vs nature arguments being like asking if a cake is how it is because of the ingredients or because of the cooking, though I suppose for individual traits you could say "it's sweet because of the sugar". There are twin studies indicating that genetic factors exist but are not sufficient explanation. I'm not sure if the twins in question were separated so there is probably some cross contamination there.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8494487/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1562871/
#3
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.
#4
(02-27-2022, 02:42 AM)cats Wrote: The homosexuality thread on Amarna 1.0 was a substantial work and it is an incredible shame that most of the insight contained within is now lost. I've yet to see any posts from that thread make their way into an Amarna archive.

You can find multiple posts from that thread in our archive:

amarnites_on_the_origins_of_faggotry0
amarnites_on_the_origins_of_faggotry1
amarnite_on_changing_notions_of_individuality
amarnite_on_tranny_motivations
amarnite_on_the_lgbt_cult
#5
What about lesbians? I've always wondered what conditions lead to such a creature.

Femcels in disguise? Half of lesbian relationships are physically abusive and don't even have sex with eachother.
#6
(03-01-2022, 04:28 PM)FruitVendor Wrote: What about lesbians? I've always wondered what conditions lead to such a creature.

Femcels in disguise? Half of lesbian relationships are physically abusive and don't even have sex with eachother.

Most lesbians I've seen look rather virilized, in both their appearance and their mannerisms / interests.
#7
(02-27-2022, 09:59 PM)anthony Wrote: 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'.

"Thomas Mann opposed Hitler, and therefore was gay”

It makes sense that an artistic, aesthetically sensitive man would shun the company of woman (or men, or everyone, maybe this is one difference in category of gay), and even find the male form beautiful (Modern homosexuals of course do not shun female company, instead reveling in it and all the various feminine vices of gossip etc. I can hardy imagine any of this other, older type having a 'gay best friend' role). To transmogrify this into a sexual urge to suck cocks and take/give cocks up the ass is just disgusting and destructive of this inclination (to idealism as you say), even apart from the modern cult-like culture (which of course is terrible). To be honest, though, I am skeptical that these specific acts took place very much through history, as it is quite risky to one’s health. I could be wrong.

"Why are the cats gay"
#8
(03-01-2022, 04:28 PM)FruitVendor Wrote: What about lesbians? I've always wondered what conditions lead to such a creature.

Femcels in disguise? Half of lesbian relationships are physically abusive and don't even have sex with eachother.

I'm convinced lesbians do not exist. Even the heavily virilized, butch lesbians aren't attracted to another. It's either a tactic to make one more sexually appealing to men, or a severe case of femcelism.
#9
“Being gay is caused by cats. @anthony posts cats on twitter.”
#10
(03-08-2022, 10:08 PM)BillyONare Wrote: “Being gay is caused by cats. @anthony posts cats on twitter.”

You're on twitter?
#11
(03-07-2022, 11:11 AM)ToubouBogomilist Wrote:
Quote: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.
Normie relationships as genuine desire for the woman vs desire to "be in a relationship", to know oneself is sexually "valid" and not a "loser". I think Earth Rabbit could make some interesting comments on this.

You've mentioned Mishima, so I'd like to make some remarks, even if they're obvious to anyone who has read Confessions of a Mask. The protagonist (representing Mishima) as a child would read a book where a prince kills a dragon and saves a princess, and he would cover some lines so that the plot would change with the prince being killed and eaten by the dragon instead. It was not enough for the character to be a handsome hero: he had to suffer for it. So, when Mishima staged his "last play", his coup and suicide, he wasn't just acting out his political ideal - but his aesthetic and erotic ideal as well. Obviously, this kind of sexuality is too bizarre and complicated to be reduced to the word 'gay', and Mishima was fully aware of that.

BTW I found Death in Venice very boring and didn't finish it. I liked Proust's portrayal of the Baron de Charlus and Morel which I guess is similar.
The mass of normalfag men, now more than ever, talk of true love, want a woman who will understand them at a great depth and love them, flaws and all. I feel this to be historically anomalous, and is probably borne of media consumption and the tacit acknowledgement among basically all normalfags that she's not really yours, it's only your turn.

I don't think nonsensitive men conceived of love in these terms even 50 years ago. Men would simply date (and exercise a greater degree of ownership over) women. They weren't overly sentimental, they just wanted to "neck" with them in their dad's new car, or whatever. Today I think the normalfag is in so much distress at the idea that he cannot and will never have a sufficiently secure long term relationship with any woman, that he wears a skinsuit of romance, wanting to be fully "one" with a lover, lest he be cast away and replaced by someone new. In the absence of clear rules and punishment for breaking them, normalfag men navigate sex and love using these tools... the ability to make a woman "love" and understand oneself. To him it's the only way to get what he wants. It's not the result of some greater longing.

Most normalfags are in horrible relationships with women who don't really respect them. In the past, they usually had to respect them to some degree, and men had a greater capacity for violence to make women respect them (not really violence against women themselves, but at other men). This was true even in the 2000s, more than it is today anyway. Of course, they want skinship, and more importantly as you point out, they want validation, they don't want to be a creepy incel. But you'll see normies pretend to have a romantic, all-encompassing desire for a woman's love, adult men will do what is the equivalent of playing guitar outside a grown high bodycount woman's window, over and over, constantly embarrassing themselves. Gone are the days of boys trying to "get their rocks off", making out with cheerleaders behind the bleachers. Very little men under the age of 22-ish think like this.
#12
what do dwarves have to do with this
#13
Homosexuality is a behavior caused by a neurological disorder, product of a misdevelopment of the brain during childhood. The Y chromosome has to be exclusively cofactored in this problem, which is why women cannot be homosexual, ever. Mainly because there is not a recognized behavior or pattern emitted by the cortex structures that generate sexual behavior in both males and females that fit a rough approximate of a "go for the individual with the same gonads (unexplicit)" behavior. It is too complex of a command to pin down to a few genes atm.

The behavior in question turns the usual male sexual behavior into an obsession with adult and prepubescent males. Anal penetration might be cultural. Lesbianism is definitely cultural. Homoeroticism is a trick by the Jews, like psychoanalysis, to make you think Kaworu and Shinji aren't actually homosexual, which is false, and that the main characters of Owari No Seraph are homosexual, when they're not.
#14
(03-11-2022, 03:11 PM)Guest Wrote: Homosexuality is a behavior caused by a neurological disorder, product of a misdevelopment of the brain during childhood.

"Source: my ass"

 - Guest

How long until we find the gene that makes people believe certain human traits can be traced back to particular genes? Only a matter of time right?
#15
(03-11-2022, 07:02 PM)anthony Wrote:
(03-11-2022, 03:11 PM)Guest Wrote: Homosexuality is a behavior caused by a neurological disorder, product of a misdevelopment of the brain during childhood.

"Source: my ass"

 - Guest

How long until we find the gene that makes people believe certain human traits can be traced back to particular genes? Only a matter of time right?

Never, because genes do not alter or predetermine belief. Belief isn't the same as an influence on behavior. It's easy for you to scoff at it when you are clueless. Keep your pathosmongering and telling yourself there is any potential for poetry in neurologically stunted people. Being born/grown gay is a tragedy and only brings ruin to those affected in the end. You're like a "racist" that wants niggers to exist just so you can enslave them. Gay people exist as a deleterious civilizational absurd and a proof of God's cruelty, not as a human category for your idealization and entertainment.
#16
Guest: "You're like a racist who wants niggers to exist so you can enslave them."

You will never be a woman.
#17
"Imagine if niggers stopped existing forever. Wouldn't that be great?"

"Oh no, that would be terrible. Who are we going to enslave? They need to live at all costs."
^ You are this person @Meredith You cannot conceive of a higher struggle than hating the inferior because you are a reactionary. You love niggers. Don't forget to follow WrathOfGnon on twitter.
#18
“If you do not like Wrath of Gnon please screenshot my post about him and post it on Twitter and make sure he reads it.”

“I like some black artists such as Kanye West so I do not want them to be exterminated. If I knew how to help gay people I would.”

“Women are just defective men. Men crippled by having an extra X chromosome. A condition similar to Down syndrome. It is cruel to not exterminate the female race and replace them with artificial wombs and sex robots. You want women to exist because you secretly love them and want to put your penis in their vagina. It is a civilizational subhuman farce. Weakling.”
#19
No post-intellectualization or theory of mind can lead me to misogyny more effectively than my own violent urges to fuck them, since being a mammal is the base foundation of the human experience.
#20
Most gays are AGP as far as I'm aware. Sure seems like it when even the ones who strictly define themselves as gay speak in a feminine affect, cross-dress, and have a lot of female "friends". It's really terrible that the gay stuff has been totally lost and now the argument centers on trans.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)