THE TWILIGHT ZONE

Carrying on the debate from the Therapy Room..

Imagine a phallic shaped object sold to children that melts cream in their mouth when they lick it...associated with bright rainbow colors and "gay" [sexuality] clearly indicated.. It's all so kid friendly!

I wonder if the guy selling might be a pedophile? Nah..it's too easy..

Boy howdy! I wonder if that means the lady is a lesbo as well

No idea, but she sure looks like she's promoting the idea. I think it just goes to show how unaware of their subconscious many gays are. That they would miss all the subliminal shit in that getup and open up at a fair in NY [couple years back when this photo of this real ice cream truck was taken], is amazing.

It just goes to show that we need to take a deeper look into the gay and what it's all about.

Lesbo or not, she's sorta sexy..

_________________
Art for the Masses

Anyhow, when you announced this thread in the Shoutbox, Sil, I thought at first you'd go for a serious continuation of the 'debate'. But I've already said what I personally had to say on your anti-gay sentiments as you expressed them there.

Feel free to copy those exchanges into this thread, if you care enough.

That's hard to do since the chat disappears after a bit.

Ok well to paraphrase, several of my daughter's friends were heterosexual and in love with various boys and were aggressively stalked for a period of years by a predatory lesbian intent on converting them. One girl in particular she focused on by stalking her relationship with the boy she loved, wearing that relationship down with poisonous gossip through surrogates and then finally and repeatedly getting the target drunk and essentially raping her into her "new preference".

Your response to that was that instead of a bad experience, that maybe the aggressive lesbian had "liberated" the target who had "always been a lesbian" and was finally brought to that "realization" by the predator.

My response was that you were defending, blindly, that which was clearly indefensible. Your retort was that we differed in opinions. You inserted the typical backed-into-a-corner-with-no-logical-response strategey so familiar with gay apologists of diversion to trying to make the subject about me being intolerant of gays and a "hater" [again, paraphrased for simplicity].

You then challenged me to post studies that backed up my assertions that homosexuality is acquired or can be trained as is done in the artificial insemination [AI] industry...to which I posted this link: http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf which is a an exhaustive study of how sexuality is molded. You replied that you skimmed through it and didn't find anything impressive to change your mind. I recommended you read it instead and find it fascinating as I have.

You then went on to challenge my knowledge of psychology, stating that I'd only had a highschool background in it. I corrected you and said I'd had a college background in it. You offered that my professors probably had issue with my stance. I agreed that they did and because of my heated challenges to them, I was awarded an A++ from my introductory psych. professor, giddy with the fact that a student actually cared enough not to regurgitate oldschool and was there not just to warm a chair.

It was at this point or thereabouts that you decided to feed your cat.

Is that just about how you remembered the exchange?

As a result of her observations of her experiences, and now the fact that these converted "lesbians" friends of hers wont' lend an ear to her talk of her relationships with the men in her life without cutting her short with "fuck men!", my daughter wants to create a bumper sticker that says "What's wrong with being hetero? Dont' hate!"

I told her I would bankroll that idea and maybe we could make some sweet moolah from the throngs of people sick to death of being demonized for being heteros...or for those who have been aggressively approached by gays for "conversion therapy" to realize their "true origins" of being homosexual. The only real aggression I've seen surrounding the gay issue is from gays themselves who are furious at not being taken as equals to heteros in marriage, or furious that their advances were declined by heteros they were after. It goes almost without saying, but I'll say it here anyway, that for a gay to approach a hetero for sex is a form of hate. It clearly is a form of disrespect because what the gay is essentially saying is "your preference doesn't count and I intend to usurp [change] it."

I'll tell you something...sexuality is a powerful blank slate that can be bent, sometimes grotesquely [as with beastiality, necrophilia or pedophilia for examples] in any which direction more malleably in youth and less so as the years progress. The only thing you can hang your hat on with it is that it stems from a powerful and deep instinct to reproduce. But after that point it can get channelled and waylaid any number of ways by classical conditioning. The Pfaus article [link above] reflects that stance exactly. Exhaustively. And so does the entire industry that brings you bacon, hamburgers and lambchops.

"Is that just about how you remembered the exchange?"

No, but I can tell that's how you'll be recounting it in future, in your head.

Have a nice summer anyway.

I invite you to post your different rememberings again. Please. Refresh me if my memory is faulty.

I'd like to revisit this and add that it appears that gays instinctively lend a nod of assent to the sexual-molding theories out there, backed by studies in comparative psychology, by their very efforts to "liberate" [convert] hetero preference to at least bisexual if not outright homosexual. They are in essence by courting heteros, saying "look, we know sexuality is powerful and lends itself to molding of enough pressure is applied". Why else would they pursue heteros? Why not just leave alone and chase those like themselves? Or are they asserting that we are all homosexuals at heart and only need to be "liberated" to accept that?

With the equilvalent and opposite stance being "we are all heterosexual at heart and only need to be liberated to understand that".. See, I believe they are in agreement. I would say if you weighed both stances on a scale of subjective viewpoints they would balance perfectly. The only upset would come when the scientific evidence for sexuality's origins being to procreate the species is added to the hetero side. Then the scale would tip quite abruptly and settle on the ground of truth that supports the true origins of "sexual preference".

I feel for those afflicted with fetishes from which they cannot experience pleasure without a certain set of stimuli in direct conflict with their true biological urgings. What a mindfuck, and pardon the pun. It is this exact conflict which I believe explains the opposite-gender-mimicry phenomenon in gay couples you see everyday. Their instincts are telling them that there needs to be a male and a female in sex. But their molding has crosswired that and the result is the femme gay and the bull-dyke.

I can see a beastiophile putting lipstick on a pig before he mounts it. The original urgings are there but we can all agree something got tampered with along the line.

And then we need to realize that this tampered state is seeking normalcy through marriage. When we realize our youth aspire consciously and more powerfully subconsciously towards societal norms, it is our duty and responsibility to not lightly set those norms without doing some serious homework on them..

Did you get a picture

No Julia, as you already know that statement was a metaphor for what gay couples do having one mimic the opposite gender, having their signals crosswired from our universal instincts of sex to procreate..

Was that another attempt at a topic diversion? OK, to be fair, I already know the answer to my rhetorical question..

The debate continues [so that it can disappear?] in The Therapy Room but I'll try to capture most of it here. Feel free to jump in and correct me..

Here's today's distillation:


You cannot arbitrarily decide which "not one man and one woman" you will allow to marry and which you wont'.

A closer look at marriage needs to be had here. Marriage is just one of the norms we as a society promote for people to sign up with. It is, a societal "ideal". No marriage is perfect and some are utterly horrible but the ideal to aspire to serves as a beacon to strive for. It is something that we are upholding to future generations to shoot for. If you take away the specifics of that ideal and muddy it down to "whatever you want", then the ideal is gone, replaced by anarchy.

In case you haven't noticed, we humans are a sorry lot and always degrade to our most perverse and undisciplined selves as a herd. Individually may be different but herd mentality always wins by sheer numbers. Think about it. Go to Wallmart and ask yourselves "do I want this mob eventually rising to power?" Because they will. History has shown that without ideals, laws and morality to shoot for, our little tribe gets real ugly, real nasty real fast..

Give me one example in history where NOT having excessive laws caused a problem Ssil.

_________________
Art for the Masses