[PLEASUREMAN]

You have certainly noticed that nowhere is homosexuality more accepted by a mainstream than on the Internet, and that one very vocal defender is the group of socially marginalized nerds who occupy the Internet because they are comfortable (and welcome) nowhere else. I will attempt to explain the reason for this.

My theory is that beta males are generally more receptive to homosexual thoughts and "gender theory" bullshit because betas, being passive followers, are more likely to see themselves as the woman in any relationship--even if they are not attracted to men they see themselves as the subordinate partner.

This explains many nerd fetishes and preferences, for example the way nerd fiction idolizes powerful women (i.e. men with breasts) even though reality gives very few examples of powerful women, and certainly not physically powerful. (Women themselves do not fantasize about having physical power.) This fetish is produced by the infantile regression that nerds undergo during or near adolescence, and they rarely grow out of it.

Beta males look to symbols of female power and assertiveness because:

a) they see themselves as half-woman and these fantasies empower them, and
b) a strong woman can protect them much as their mother did.

Obviously that is when their sexual passivity becomes apparent and even if they are not overtly homosexual they realize that they themselves have not developed a traditional "gender identity" (i.e. they are dickless weaklings). Sometimes they overcompensate by indulging in fantasies of being powerful (buying guns, playing video games, otherwise retreating from reality), but as we know the fantasy never comes close to reality and they seethe with hatred at actual powerful men.

Look at their hero, Barry Obama, a classic conciliator whose base is single women and nignogs (children) and whose promise is to never assert himself as a real male authority figure but rather to dismantle (white) male authority and replace it with female protection and empathy. Hence his political maneuvers, such as complaining about the unfairness of Fox News and accusing Republicans of saying "no" to him all the time, are the strategies of weaklings who seek to constrain through manipulation those who are naturally more aggressive. (The traditional newsroom bias was always an oblique form of this, as compared to overt political opposition which exposes one to attack--always a fear of the beta male.)

Because beta males are especially insecure in their phantom manhood, they gravitate towards cartoonish expressions of power, but it is nearly always a passive, castrate form of male power that seeks to repel the vigorous, confident aggression of "evil" men. This sets up an obvious crisis of sexual identity, as the beta male's fears and jealousies all swirl around other men, and his own inclination is to the feminine due to his sense of comfort with passive, effeminate roles. (The forces of "good" in beta male fantasy never seem to actively engage the world, but rather only fight back against unprovoked attack.)

In reality there is no such clear division between "good" and "evil", but the beta male strives to impose this division in his politics. Because of his identification with gay men his political preferences are seldom conservative (which at any rate would make him a defender of an order established by more powerful, aggressive men), but they can otherwise be Left or Right without much change in stance. His most pronounced tendency is to demonize opponents and ostracize from his ingroup anyone who threatens his fragile ego--following the tactics that make women so unproductive in the workplace, their orientation not around goals but around establishing the proper interpersonal hierarchy.

From all this comes the beta male's fondness for homosexuality, at least conceptually; there is even a partial explanation here of some of that culture's political and cultural obsessions. The beta male is a homophile--as contrasted with the false word "homophobe", which is meant to stigmatize the disgust which people have for homosexual activity. Like the 70s feminists who in theory wanted to be lesbians, the average beta will not act out on his homophilia (although one senses he is ready to be pushed in that direction), unless of course he is English.

The beta style in politics is generally prohibitive and controlling ("gay marriage", for example, is more about prohibiting anti-homosexual sentiment than promoting what everyone can see as the farcical practice of gays marrying and forming pseudo-families). The good news, such as it is, is that a beta politics cannot survive very long due to its preference for weakness and fake consensus, which leads it to unsustainable policies. It will weaken institutions to a point of collapse, and then its control will collapse.

Not helping matters for the beta is his lack of fecundity, both literal and figurative--the beta favors a protective society, not a productive one.

My sense is that we may be at a turning point--that the paradoxical beta influence on society is creating such a contemptuous reaction to it that its downfall will come very quickly. But at the moment this is based only on intuitive guessing.

[Chef Boyhowdy]

Quote

a) they see themselves as half-woman and these fantasies empower them, and
b) a strong woman can protect them much as their mother did.

Where you see sexual identity anxieties and Oedipus, I see a frustration with the illogic of human pair bonding. They lust after powerful and often imaginary women because they are a better fit for their projections of the ideal female actor in a courtship, a woman who will weigh the nerd's meekness and bank account against the bartender's gorgeous hair by a simple application of game theory or future-time awareness beyond three hours.

I mostly see the affinity for homosexuals (in the abstract) as simple status signaling to the available female population. Beyond a certain age, there simply aren't single conservative women, and gay rights support is de rigeur among left females.

Also, there's a tinge of simpatico for another out group, especially one with an effortless rapport with straight women based on rational common interests, not the vulgar arcana and glandular compulsion that ruins human courtship for them.

The nerd exposed firsthand to gay culture, as opposed to gay individuals and stable couples, would be repelled by the superficiality and promiscuity. Hedonism and recklessness are inscrutable to the beta, so I don't know where this affinity could really lead.

[eigenface]

Perhaps the simplest explanation is that nerds are more enlightened and less prone to irrational bigotry. Also they tend to be atheists, so they don't pay heed to the anti-gay injunctions typical of mainstream religions.

Personally, I have never understood why heterosexual men can be homophobes. The optimal strategy for heteros would be to promote homosexuality in other men as much as possible, so as to reduce the competition for women.

[PLEASUREMAN]

eigenface, 08 November 2009 - 07:03 AM:

Perhaps the simplest explanation is that nerds are more enlightened and less prone to irrational bigotry. Also they tend to be atheists, so they don't pay heed to the anti-gay injunctions typical of mainstream religions.

Personally, I have never understood why heterosexual men can be homophobes. The optimal strategy for heteros would be to promote homosexuality in other men as much as possible, so as to reduce the competition for women.

beep boop beep

dislike of homosexuality...is not logical, captain



Perhaps you can entertain us with libertarian social theory and a spirited defense of noted blogger Half Sigma.

Actually the optimal strategy is to stigmatize abberant social behavior that works against community stability (gay men, in addition to having predatory sexual habits, are famously hedonistic, carriers of venereal disease, and due to their mental illness are likely to work against healthy community institutions). That is probably why homosexuals have been viewed with disgust for thousands of years, with the notable exception of civilizations approaching collapse.

(The fact that you can't even fathom a "strategy" that takes into account larger factors than immediate personal benefit in some nerdy competition for HB10s is a sign of stunted growth.)

[PLEASUREMAN]

Chef Boyhowdy, 08 November 2009 - 02:33 AM:

Where you see sexual identity anxieties and Oedipus, I see a frustration with the illogic of human pair bonding. They lust after powerful and often imaginary women because they are a better fit for their projections of the ideal female actor in a courtship, a woman who will weigh the nerd's meekness and bank account against the bartender's gorgeous hair by a simple application of game theory or future-time awareness beyond three hours.

I mostly see the affinity for homosexuals (in the abstract) as simple status signaling to the available female population. Beyond a certain age, there simply aren't single conservative women, and gay rights support is de rigeur among left females.

Also, there's a tinge of simpatico for another out group, especially one with an effortless rapport with straight women based on rational common interests, not the vulgar arcana and glandular compulsion that ruins human courtship for them.

The nerd exposed firsthand to gay culture, as opposed to gay individuals and stable couples, would be repelled by the superficiality and promiscuity. Hedonism and recklessness are inscrutable to the beta, so I don't know where this affinity could really lead.

I think it's true that the homophile nerd knows very little about actual gays (or blacks, women, asians, earthlings), his sole contact with them is through the Internet or maybe some co-worker, but you might underestimate the severe emotional immaturity of the nerd, which is what makes him a beta after all. While they often like to fancy themselves as misunderstood aspies who find human emotion confusing and illogical, they have an intense yet childish emotional life (see Steven Den Beste), unlike the real thing. Their preferences are not based on cold reason (again this is a posture of theirs which is very easily seen through) but on a childish longing for love and acceptance.

I also am inclined to discount the status signaling, although there must be an element of that generally (since dislike of homosexuals is seen as "low class" among liberals). When you take the beta male as a whole it is clear he is very bad at appearing high status, nearly every choice he makes in life thwarts attempts to gain status. I find with nerds that, beyond a limited acceptance by other nerds, they energetically pursue social strategies that rob them of status (affinity for marginalized political groups, haphazard personal appearance, obsessive interests and hobbies, easy intimidation by virtually everyone they meet, etc.).

For betas the ideal female actor is anyone who will accept them for the broken beings they are--she should have low standards but somehow not have fallen into an evil jock's clutches. (So in reality he ends up with fat, personality-challenged nerdettes.) Actual strong women are attracted to even stronger men--almost universally, women have a contempt for weakness. (By the way this is the reason Betty Draper is going to leave her husband in Mad Men.) This is where I think his fixation on mother figures is particularly evident--he needs someone who will accept his weakness.

That said, your theory hangs together, maybe there are components of both at work.

[eigenface]

PLEASUREMAN:

That is probably why homosexuals have been viewed with disgust for thousands of years, with the notable exception of civilizations approaching collapse.

LOL, that's some eighteenth century, Edward Gibbonesque, "political breakdown by moral decay" argument right there.

You could make a better case for homosexuality becoming more accepted as a civilization enters its golden age. Periclean Athens, for example. But hey, maybe you are right and the Renaissance would have been much better without Michelangelo, who knows.

PLEASUREMAN:

beep boop beep

dislike of homosexuality...is not logical, captain

It really isn't, and that's why it must be justified by 1) calling anyone pointing its absurdity a naive nerd, and 2) embarking on convoluted "genealogy of morals"-type arguments trying to show that you need to be warped or stunted for not being a bigot.

PLEASUREMAN:

Actually the optimal strategy is to stigmatize abberant social behavior that works against community stability (gay men, in addition to having predatory sexual habits, are famously hedonistic, carriers of venereal disease, and due to their mental illness are likely to work against healthy community institutions).

What do you mean by "predatory sexual habits"? Does it have something to do with "predatory lending"?

PLEASUREMAN:

(The fact that you can't even fathom a "strategy" that takes into account larger factors than immediate personal benefit in some nerdy competition for HB10s is a sign of stunted growth.)

That reminds me... you yourself have said that "betas" are very sensitive to social injustices. Meanwhile, the "mad men" you want to reclaim as paragons of old-timey masculinity are... advertisers. That is, their work consists in changing other's preferences for no other reason than personal benefit.

Your choice of role models is a bit incoherent it seems.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Taking your points in reverse order...the characters in Mad Men aren't my role models, but a sloppy thinker might mistranslate my praise for the show that way (unlike the cartoons you may favor, it is possible to enjoy a sophisticated drama while realizing it depicts flawed characters). And betas aren't concerned with social injustice--they're concerned with being sheltered from opprobrium. I think you'll find they have little to do with "social injustice" movements (if that's how you want to generously define homophilia) until they're rather well established and finally cross the beta's introverted gaze.

"What do you mean by predatory sexual habits"...beep boop beep...syntax not found...sorry, I don't believe you're that dumb, try a different approach.

Quote

It really isn't, and that's why it must be justified by 1) calling anyone pointing its absurdity a naive nerd, and 2) embarking on convoluted "genealogy of morals"-type arguments trying to show that you need to be warped or stunted for not being a bigot.

Except that I gave valid reasons why homosexuals are disruptive and you failed to respond to any of them, which tells me my argument made you uncomfortable because so far you've teed up every cheap shot you could. You want a serious discussion about homosexuality about as much as a homosexual man wants monogamy. What you'd rather do is continue your beta tactic of calling people names and making this out to reflect well on you. If only someone else was watching...but your beta instincts kick in whether anyone sees them or not, don't they?

[eigenface]

Quote

Except that I gave valid reasons why homosexuals are disruptive.

Your "reasons" are awfully vague. I could do with some concrete examples, really. Again, what do you exactly mean by "predatory sexual habits"? I am really that dumb.

And being an hedonist is not, by itself, a bad thing.

As for gays spreading venereal disease, heterosexual men are pretty safe from that, unless they are the kind of heterosexual men who like to fuck other men.

There's also your question-begging. Gays are harmful to healthy community institutions... because they are mentally ill... because they are gay.

[Probably Not]

eigenface, 09 November 2009 - 10:01 AM:

And being an hedonist is not, by itself, a bad thing.

I despise when posters "pile on" one with different views, but part of your disagreement with PM stems from your unquestioned assumption here. While you might make the case that pleasure is not in itself a bad thing, there are very good arguments to the effect that hedonism IS.

If you don't accept those arguments, fine, a discussion can proceed from there. But you don't even seem to be aware of them, which would mean you're too uninformed to have any kind of discussion with beyond colorful name-calling.

[PLEASUREMAN]

eigenface, 09 November 2009 - 10:01 AM:

Quote

Except that I gave valid reasons why homosexuals are disruptive.

Your "reasons" are awfully vague. I could do with some concrete examples, really. Again, what do you exactly mean by "predatory sexual habits"? I am really that dumb.

And being an hedonist is not, by itself, a bad thing.

As for gays spreading venereal disease, heterosexual men are pretty safe from that, unless they are the kind of heterosexual men who like to fuck other men.

There's also your question-begging. Gays are harmful to healthy community institutions... because they are mentally ill... because they are gay.

I don't think you know what question begging means. But you wouldn't be the first one on the Internet.

I'm not half as interested in why homosexuality is a social problem (and it's obviously a waste of time to pursue that subject with you) as I am why passive-aggressive nerds are homophiles. Frankly I'm unconvinced by your theory that they are so because they are simply virtuous beings. The unconvincing part is that the beta male tends to be, when you peek under the hood, a person filled with petty jealousies and hatreds and insecurities from some stage of adolescence. You see it all the time from the open source community, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and their ilk, which are all groups filled with beta males who are very unhappy and very unpleasant about it.

You've made it this far and really can't imagine why someone would find homosexuality disgusting other than "bigotry"--and you throw in some "it's logical to favor homosexuality" rubbish which makes utterly no sense at all except by the application of Dungeons and Dragons rules to real life. As for examples, someone poke this fellow and see if he has been asleep the last 30 years when homosexuals and junkies managed to spread a worldwide immunodeficiency virus that has since sucked up billions if not trillions of dollars in treatment and countermeasures and other costs. (And if you counter that this disease originated among purportedly hetero Africans, you will just be avoiding the fact that it would have stayed there as well had it not been for fuck-anything-that-moves gay men.)

The mental illness claim is buttressed by the fact that gay male culture is notably shallow and hedonistic (I understand you don't actually find the latter a problem), abhors monogamy, is extremely weak on the protection of children and adolescents from sexual predation, has escalated drug usage, and being a mostly childless (and childish) cohort is prone to pursue social and economic policies that benefit them in the here and now without much if any concern for future generations. (Some gay men of course do have children--tragically--and therefore inflict further damage, without appearing to suffer any benefits.)

There's also the fact that human beings--earthlings to you--have evolved like most of the animal kingdom into two complementary sexes, and so have our emotional lives. That means that healthy romantic relationships depend on that complementary balance. Homophilia therefore proceeds from the starting point of ignorance of this basic fact of life, and can be expected from "clever sillies" as well as people too foolish to comprehend the significance of tradition (where they are incapable of understanding it).

Hope this helps, but I can already feel the next obtuse reply slamming into me...

[lytton]

Quote

My sense is that we may be at a turning point--that the paradoxical beta influence on society is creating such a contemptuous reaction to it that its downfall will come very quickly.

Demographics may be on your side here; supposedly beta males are reproducing less than ever, as women no longer face social censure for casually hooking up with more desirable males throughout their prime reproductive years and the luckless betas retreat into video games and porn.

[rho]

Quote

But hey, maybe you are right and the Renaissance would have been much better without Michelangelo, who knows.

Beyond the fact that the evidence for Michelangelo's homosexuality is exceedingly thin, why do gays love to point out all the notable gay people from the past? What of it?

Since we don't seem to have gobs of notable gays these days--notable, as opposed to famous--maybe repressive social mores help keep faggots busy and productive?

Okay, okay, that's a pretty weak assertion; but still stronger than Michelangelo's love for the cock.

I tend towards supporting gay marriage because I'm sick to death of hearing whiny homos compare themselves to Rosa Parks.

[PLEASUREMAN]

lytton, 09 November 2009 - 04:40 PM:

Quote

My sense is that we may be at a turning point--that the paradoxical beta influence on society is creating such a contemptuous reaction to it that its downfall will come very quickly.

Demographics may be on your side here; supposedly beta males are reproducing less than ever, as women no longer face social censure for casually hooking up with more desirable males throughout their prime reproductive years and the luckless betas retreat into video games and porn.

See also the fate of gay marriage in California. The politically correct enemy is Mormons (as if), but we all know something about the views of the millions of Mexicans who were citizens of convenience for the state Democratic Party. The only thing whiter than a neo-Nazi rally is a gay pride parade, and as the ethnic balance shifts the prospects for gay marriage start to look quite dim.

[lytton]

PLEASUREMAN, 09 November 2009 - 05:04 PM:

lytton, 09 November 2009 - 04:40 PM:

Quote

My sense is that we may be at a turning point--that the paradoxical beta influence on society is creating such a contemptuous reaction to it that its downfall will come very quickly.

Demographics may be on your side here; supposedly beta males are reproducing less than ever, as women no longer face social censure for casually hooking up with more desirable males throughout their prime reproductive years and the luckless betas retreat into video games and porn.

See also the fate of gay marriage in California. The politically correct enemy is Mormons (as if), but we all know something about the views of the millions of Mexicans who were citizens of convenience for the state Democratic Party. The only thing whiter than a neo-Nazi rally is a gay pride parade, and as the ethnic balance shifts the prospects for gay marriage start to look quite dim.

It's a sad commentary on society if we have to rely on the immigrant underclass to protect our dwindling values. I guess they're just not clever enough to be silly.

[PLEASUREMAN]

It's an interesting question as to which is worse...a morally degenerate privileged class, or a morally degenerate impoverished one (morality...another thing Eigenface won't get very worked up about until he gets his bigot implant)

It seems the answer must be the former, as the established elite has engineered many of the social problems that have worsened since the 60s. Religion? Protestant work ethic? Consumerism and selfishness and atomized, disjointed communities will obviate the need for these primitive and illogical forces. *watches banking system collapse, vast economic disparities form*

[HopeAndChange44]

PLEASUREMAN, 09 November 2009 - 06:04 PM:

See also the fate of gay marriage in California. The politically correct enemy is Mormons (as if), but we all know something about the views of the millions of Mexicans who were citizens of convenience for the state Democratic Party. The only thing whiter than a neo-Nazi rally is a gay pride parade, and as the ethnic balance shifts the prospects for gay marriage start to look quite dim.

Leftists think that, because they fight for minority causes, minorities will join them in fighting for Leftist causes out of a sense of obligation. Sort of like a guy who takes a girl out to a nice restaurant and therefore expects her to have sex with him. They feel like minorities owe them - I've heard them say this explicitly several times. There are few things in life more enjoyable than watching their heads explode when they discover that minorities have minds of their own.

This post has been edited by HopeAndChange44: 10 November 2009 - 05:22 PM

[cleon]

My thoughts with homosexuals:


1. If all whatever causes gayness did was make gays just want to have sex with others of the same sex then I wouldn't dislike them as much. Unfortunately, whatever changes them also effects a whole range of other personality traits. It's funny how nerds are all about science and logic in everything but their own pet issues. If you bring up how homosexuality also causes other personality changes they freak out and start yelling about free will or whatever. Odd because if there were total free will and changes to your brain didnt effect your personality then homosexuality would be a choice and gays would be able to be cured. They also oppose any research into what causes homosexuality because they are afraid of a 'cure'. A cure would imply that there is something wrong with it (there is). They maintain that homosexuals are productive members of society and cause no problems (more on that later) so why 'cure' them and take away 'diversity'. The same people would probably love to find what causes undue aggression in some males and fix that under the pretense of protecting society. I always bring up albinos or deaf people when they start saying there is no reason to cure homosexuals. Both groups are functioning in society but really.... would you really want to be born deaf or albino (and yes, i know all about the fucking retarded deaf culture people). It's just odd that liberals think that such a big thing like your sex response being fucked up wouldn't effect the rest of their brains. It's even more odd if you have ever spent any time around a homo. You know right off there is something really wrong with him/her.

2. Public Health. Despite all the PR trying to make HIV seem like something that isnt related to gays the HIV infection rate keeps rising. Actually the PR probably is the cause of the increase in HIV transmittance. Homos think its not their disease anymore so they feel free to get their 8 way unprotected fuckfests on with no concern for anyone else. A larger percentage of gays are drug users in comparison to the straight population.



i also love it when supposedly scientifically minded liberals bring up homosexual relationships in other species. yet again the albino, deaf and retarded examples work. we share the same tool kit and instruction set as every other living thing on the planet. If there is a weak link some where in our instructions that makes it easy for albinos/cancer/deafness/ect to happen in most related species then is it such a big jump to assume the same thing is also true of homosexuality? I think so, but then again I dont politicize my scientific questioning.

This post has been edited by cleon: 10 November 2009 - 07:42 PM

[PLEASUREMAN]

cleon, 10 November 2009 - 07:37 PM:

If there is a weak link some where in our instructions that makes it easy for albinos/cancer/deafness/ect to happen in most related species then is it such a big jump to assume the same thing is also true of homosexuality? I think so, but then again I dont politicize my scientific questioning.

YOU FUCKING MONSTER

great post though

[Chef Boyhowdy]

PLEASUREMAN, 08 November 2009 - 10:56 AM:

I also am inclined to discount the status signaling, although there must be an element of that generally (since dislike of homosexuals is seen as "low class" among liberals). When you take the beta male as a whole it is clear he is very bad at appearing high status, nearly every choice he makes in life thwarts attempts to gain status. I find with nerds that, beyond a limited acceptance by other nerds, they energetically pursue social strategies that rob them of status (affinity for marginalized political groups, haphazard personal appearance, obsessive interests and hobbies, easy intimidation by virtually everyone they meet, etc.).

We're bumping up against definitions here, i think. When we start with "nerds" and "betas" we get garbage out. Im really susceptible to a beta/nerd/swpl conflation that's not helpful. a bogeyman.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Nerds are such diehard betas they are useful as examples. And for obvious reasons the Internet is filled with them, so when I think beta males who white knight fags, nerds leap right to mind.

By implication the beta male is not an ordinary follower but a person of such passive and reactive nature that his beta-ness somewhat paradoxically thrusts forward.