Gay needs to be suppressed

Gay simply did not exist until the late nineteenth century, and when we are in power, they will no longer exist, and people will not quite remember that they ever existed, much as they do not quite remember that pre-2008 Obama was opposed to gay marriage and was born in Kenya, or that before Christmas 1978, the Democrats and every single tenured academic in the entire US government hegemony supported the Khmer Rouge, or at least politely remained silent while his academic institution supported the Khmer Rouge, taught students a pro Khmer Rouge version of recent events, and required them to affirm that version in essays.

Chesterton’s Fence: All functional societies either look down on homosexuality, or altogether strictly prohibit it, executing the offenders, and those that stop suppressing it, soon go into decline. Likewise, all successful religions that last for a long time prohibit it. Those societies that manage to reproduce most fruitfully invariably restrict gay activity.

The reactionary state will in theory throw men who lie with a males as with a woman off skyscrapers, or publicly hang them, or something like that –  something terrifying, deadly, and, most importantly, publicly humiliating.  Without the public humiliation, nothing we do will have the desired effect. No society has ever managed to kill off gays as efficiently as they kill off themselves and each other, thus merely killing gays is of limited effectiveness. It is essential to kill them in a way that lowers their status.

In practice, however, we should only do that to people who obstinately and persistently shove the gay in our faces despite lesser punishments and lesser humiliations, because those are the ones that cause problems.  If gays stop shoving gay in other people’s faces, if gays let us pretend that they do not exist, things are fine enough, even if a whole lot of bad things may be happening behind closed doors.  We don’t need to poke our nose behind everyone’s door.  They would love us to pay them that much attention, and we would fail their fitness test if we did pay them that much attention. We do need to poke our nose behind the doors of people who are ostentatiously shoving the gay in our faces, and use what we find as an excuse to throw them off a tall building so that they will damn well stop shoving the gay in our faces.

We need to terrorize gays, not into not existing, which would require far too much terror, and give them far too much attention, which attention they would enjoy far too much, but we need to terrorize them into allowing us to pretend that they do not exist, as successful societies routinely pretended.  Our ancestors knew that sodomy happened, but denied that those involved were attracted to males.  Rather, they assumed that those guilty were attracted to concave surfaces, or concave surfaces that were part of children.  They did not quite forget the joke (after all it is right there in the Old and New Testaments, so it is hard to forget) but did not quite remember it either.

This post stolen wholesale from this excellent comment, which reminds us of Chesterton’s fence.  All societies that survived suppressed homosexuality.  Failing to suppress it presages decline and collapse.

So why do societies that tolerate gay then collapse?

Signalling Hazard: If you allow gays, David cannot love Jonathan. If David cannot love Jonathan, hard for the mighty men of David to stick together. If the mighty men cannot stick together, the state cannot cohere. If the state cannot cohere, you get anarcho tyranny, a thousand Kings three miles away instead of one King three thousand miles away.It’s just no longer possible for men to hang out with each other, especially in intimacy, without the lingering suspicion that something of the “poop-dick” variety must be going on. Gay destroyed men’s friendships. It used to be possible for men to walk together down the street and even invite each other for sleepover without anyone having the faintest suspicion that anal sex is involved. To have successful cooperation, we have to be able to meaningfully bond with each other, but meaningful bonding is absolutely impossible when signalling “I love you bro” translates to “I want to fuck your ass.” Without gays in society, we would be able to express legit affection and signal brotherly loyalty to each other, and without the nagging need to perpetually explain that we are “no homo.”

If gays are free to speak, I am not free to speak. “Just bake the cake, why don’t you.” If you tolerate homosexuality, you must tolerate free speech by gays about sex and sexuality, whereupon you cannot, in practice, tolerate free speech by straights about sex and sexuality

Multnomah County Library offers a series of programs called Drag Queen Storytime. These events seek to explore ideas of difference, diversity and inclusion through stories, music and costume. The library serves a diverse population with a broad range of interests, preferences and needs. We strive to reflect our communities’ needs in selecting programs, books and other materials.
Evidently biblical marriage and the heterosexuality of old movies is not “diverse”. If men dressed as women having sex with small boys in public on the Multnomah County Library floor are officially incuded, Perseus rescuing and abducting princess Andromeda must necessarily be officially excluded.

Normalizing perversion inevitably leads to and requires abnormalizing normal male sexuality. Thus normal male and female sexuality (men conquer, women surrender, but men perform and women choose) can no longer be depicted. You cannot depict the Han Solo of the original Star Wars movies or the original Indiana Jones any more. A society that allows homosexuality to be depicted is unable to to allow heterosexuality to be depicted, except by having the heterosexuals act gay, as for example in the recent star wars and avengers movies. If society makes space for gays act gay, it cannot allow space for straights to act straight. If gays are included, straights are necessarily excluded. There is no room for both them and us. For us to have room to be ourselves, we have to deny them room to be themselves. Even in porn, you will not see female submission to the conquering male realistically portrayed. You have not seen male conquest and female surrender since “McLintock”, and “Gone with the Wind”. What you will see portrayed is males and females following the gay bondage domination and submission script. Bondage domination and submission is a hateful gay parody of the inherent inequality of the courtship dance, as drag queens are a hateful gay parody of femininity. You are not allowed to depict Han Solo hitting on Princess Leia If you were to attempt to create something like the first Star Wars movie today a whole lot of men and women with no children will complain that depicting men and women following very different mating strategies, (men conquering and women surrendering, men performing and women choosing) is oppressive. If those complaining get declared normal, I get declared abnormal. There is no room in the world for both them and me, for they will not permit room in the world for Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Rhett Butler, and McLintock. A world with no room for heroes has no room for me. If it is legal for gay to exist, then it is illegal for me to exist. It is legal for a person who identifies as a man to have sex with a person who identifies as a woman, but it is illegal for me to act as men act with women, as men and women in old movies acted. It has proven impossible to include gays without excluding straights.

Denormalization of biological families: Whenever homosexuals are allowed, they inevitably argue, “We are normal, just like everyone else. We should be allowed to have kids.” And when they do get children, what happens? For one, the children grow up in confusion about what normalcy is and what it isn’t, leading to dysfunction later in life as they try to make sense of the world. Secondly, state and society face endlessly weird, even absurd, “Clown World” dilemmas in dealing with homosexual “families,” e.g. when homosexuals fight over custody over children donated by sperm or egg or adopted. Thirdly, the traditional family unit itself is wholly unraveled as the door is now opened for whatever bizarre sort of household one can imagine: “Why can’t transsexuals be parents too? My single mother has already transitioned to a single father and Xe still loves me!” and so on and so forth. And fourthly, allowing sex freaks to raise children is prone to result in sexual abuse, whether it’s diddling by gay “parents,” or anti-testosterone hormonal torture by lesbian “parents,” or growing up in a whorehouse attended by fetishists of every shade, hue, and color.

Consent Culture: Women don’t really like consent. They prefer “It just happened”. If consent is defined as normality, then biblical marriage is defined as abnormality, as a crime. Consent culture makes Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians 7:3-7 crime instead of law. If consent defines what sex is right and what sex is wrong, this effectively abolishes marriage, making it hard to reproduce. Women don’t like to be beaten and don’t consent to be beaten, but they like men who might beat them regardless of consent, like men who will take them sexually regardless of consent, and sometimes, some women, some of the time, will make you prove it. It is not that women want to be mistreated, but they want to be alone and in the power of a man who might well mistreat them, or alone with him, his minions and his numerous concubines. Under these circumstances, “No” is merely a fitness test. Gays invert this by consenting to being beaten. BDSM is a hateful gay parody of the inequality characteristic of normal sexuality and of divinely ordained biblical marriage. As Drag Queens get off on an ugly hateful gay parody of femininity, BDSM gays get off on an ugly hateful gay parody of biblical marriage. In order to attain sexual liberty, the LGBT crowd have signed off on “consenting adults” morality. Hence their enthusiastic embrace of whatever the latest installment of Feminist dogma is, without which they would be condemned as “rapists” by the Feminist system. Perverts benefit from Consent Culture, because it allows them to do as they please (“consenting adults”) while preventing evil privileged heterosexual men from forming stable families with young women. Thus, all homosexuals regardless of political affiliation adhere to the Consent Culture Feminist dogma. Consent means that a drag queen can have sex in public with a six year old boy on the floor of Multnomah County Library, but Perseus cannot abduct Princess Andromeda. If drag queens get to molest small boys on the floor of Multnomah public library, then I do not get to abduct Princess Andromeda. If it is legal for drag queens to molest small boys in public on the floor of Multnomah public library, then it is illegal for me to marry in accordance with Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33, First Peter 3:1-7, and First Corinthians 7:3-5. If we don’t throw gays off tall buildings, or hang them in public, or something similarly terrifying and status lowering, then they make biblical marriage illegal, making it difficult for us to have children. We have to suppress them, for if we fail to suppress them, they suppress us. If they get away with secretly having sex with small boys behind closed doors, that does not cause problems for us, assuming it is fatherless boys, which it always is, but if they can get away with having sex with small boys in public on the floor of Multnomah public library, then we cannot get away with divinely ordained marriage. We have to stop them, so that they cannot stop us.

Diseases: Gay sex is unhealthy, and moreover, the typically promiscuous habits of most gays—triple digit partners are par for the course among the vast majority of them—vastly exacerbates the spread of venereal diseases. STDs, particularly the serious ones such as AIDS, are essentially a homosexual phenomenon, though it’s also shared by other degenerates and reprobates that choose to come into regular contact with them. Gays, whose sexuality is undiscriminating and impulsive, and who are prone to heavy drug use (they do condom-less “chemsex” orgies with complete strangers), are the petri dishes of humanity, carrying assorted manifestations of God’s wrath. Like rats, wherever they go, disease follows; thus homosexuals, especially when unrestricted, are a public hazard. Furthermore, through their normalization of queer practices (cunnilingus, anilingus, etc.) among normal people, and through bisexuality, the gays have managed to infect some members of regular society with their abominable filth, which infection is useful for the gays, as it allows them to scare-monger society about the diseases that they themselves spread! Then they ask us taxpayers to invest resources into solving their sicknesses. Gays, knowing full well that they’re disease-ridden, steadfastly sought to receive the “right” to donate blood.

The ever increasing rage and repression directed against men attracted to fertile age women, and men to whom young girls are attracted is a displacement activity for the rage which ensues when people are forbidden to notice, and forbidden to prevent, gay sexual activity with eight year old boys. Because the state of Florida dares not stop drag queens from having sex with small boys in public, the State of Florida gives a mandatory five year sentence if you induce a woman who looks twenty two, but who is actually seventeen years and nine months, to send you a naughty selfie on Facebook Messenger, even if you have never met her in person and had no way of knowing her age. Going after straight men interacting with fertile age woman is displacement activity that they engage in because they cannot do what they inwardly wish to do, punish gay men having sex with eight year old boys, just as they punish men in the vicinity of misbehaving women because they cannot do what they inwardly wish to do, punish misbehaving women.

We seek to restore young arranged marriage. The homosexuals and their leftist supporters will viciously fight tooth and nail against arranged marriage, because “What if someone is gay?” In a society in which everyone is assumed straight, gays being either all dead or hiding deep in the closet (or not born in the first place), there is no such problem; but when gays are tolerated and accepted, and their presence is constantly celebrated, then any attempt to restore arranged marriage will be met with fierce opposition and cries of “Not everyone is heterosexual! Therefore, you oppressive bigots need to allow people to voluntarily choose their sex-mates, and only upon reaching fully mature adulthood!” – thus, modern Liberal Marriage. Gays are heavily invested in sexual liberalism, in allowing all adults to consent to sex with all other adults, and to withdraw consent to sex at their most frivolous whim, hence rampant divorce and defect-defect equilibrium. Liberal Marriage is absolutely incompatible with the reactionary program to make real young patriarchal marriage legal and easily attainable again.

Shamelessness: The behavior of gays is lacking in shame, a trait for which they’ve been infamous from time immemorial; they proudly wear their deviance on their sleeve. Whereas a normal person doesn’t parade around his sexual proclivities, the gays constantly shove theirs in everyone’s face. When gays are present, the atmosphere itself becomes gay, because they keep broadcasting their gayness in broad daylight. They emit an incessant sexual noise, forcing the rest of us who are naturally averse to faggotry to seek refuge from it, psychologically or physically. Can you imagine straight men parading around giant sex toys and so on?

Perversity: It’s extremely common for homosexuals to possess plethoras of aberrant fetishes, which, like their “main” deviance, they also seek to normalize. The BDSM world (gimp suits, sexual torture, etc.) is inextricably linked to gays, who pioneered it, and who were embraced by it. They relish dangerous, risky sexual behavior that leads to harm and death. Gays host scat parties in which the participants shit diarrhea and vomit on each other; they are fond of various sexual gratification toys that most normal people want nothing to do with; they are often sexually attracted to prepubescents, even toddlers (nepiophilia); there is the whole queer “furry” thing; and in all aspects, their sexual behavior is abnormal and depraved, bearing no resemblance to that of most heterosexuals.

Subversion: A fundamental political problem with homosexuals is that they always seek to upend sexual mores and morality to make them as favorable as they can be to their own death style. One can say that this is understandable and sympathize with it, but why exactly is it in society’s interest to abandon its own healthy ways to cater to the deviant desires of sexual minorities? Homosexuals never cease trying to converge everyone and everything to their death style, hence why they insinuate themselves into sundry political movements and undermine the dominant, pro-social morality therein in order to suit their special agenda. They attempt to turn all political and cultural niches incompatible with homosexuality to “gay friendly” – and, if that doesn’t work, they frantically endeavor to destroy said niches.

Homosexuals generally don’t conform to natural sex roles, because faggots are effete and dykes are masculine; consequently, they have long been the most vociferous and ardent advocates for turning all social institutions – and, indeed, society itself – into “sexually neutral” domains. They champion the entry of women into the workforce and oppose patriarchy and patriarchal marriage for that reason; they support coed education and coed workplaces; they want women to have authority over men; Homosexuals and Feminists share the same goals, and needless to say, there’s great overlap between these two categories. Most feminists are ugly childless lesbians, and the rest become cat ladies when they are no longer hot enough to bang musicians and criminals. Effete men want to be allowed to do whatever women traditionally do, and masculine women likewise want to be allowed to do everything men traditionally do, thus gays and lesbians are deeply embedded in Feminism, particularly the “classical” Feminism of giving women “equal rights.” Homosexuals as an integral ingredient of the Feminist poison. Long before gays parodied marriage by marrying each other, preparatory to winging each other while searching for nine year old boys to transexualize, lesbians made heterosexual marriage gay, in the name of the rights, freedom, and safety of married women, which rights were demanded by women who were single and unlikely to ever get married.

Infertility Normalization: Homosexuals usually have little to no children. The omnipresent celebration of the LGBT alphabet soup has resulted in a normalization of singlehood and childlessness; it’s no longer possible to say in polite society that reproduction is good and lack of reproduction is bad, because, among other things, of “homophobic overtones.” Whenever we critique low TFR, we critique a condition that is part and parcel of the gay death style, one that incessant propaganda, particularly aimed at young women and nerds, propaganda often produced by actual fags, has successfully transmitted to the entire society. By being loud, proud, and childless, and by attaining high status in society, the gays have turned childlessness into a “legitimate life choice,” indeed, as many leftists will tell you, a preferable choice than breeding. Homosexuality marches shoulder-to-shoulder with anti-natalism.

Gays are annoying. Gays predate on straight men constantly; they are offensively extroverted (gays) and aggressive (lesbians); their manner of speech is disgusting; their body movements are always exaggerated, ostentatious, and sexually non-conforming; they always manufacture more drama than they are worth. Their character’s virtues-vices ratio is horrible, as they possess more vices than one can count, and little to no virtues. Everything about them signals “Bad News.” They are also extremely petty and politically domineering, hence their going specifically after nice Christian bakeries and forcing them at the government’s gunpoint to “Bake the cake.”

Lack of Pair-Bonding: It is normal for humans to pair bond. This is another aspect of basic human decency which is conspicuously absent in faggots: They switch life (death) partners without the tiniest bit of attachment to anyone who came before. It’s just a “mood,” you see? Every day, nay – every hour, can bring someone new to take the place of the previous “sex mate.” Gays are never “couples” after the heterosexual model: They are always inexclusive friends-with-benefits looking for a novel sexual sensation. Deep affection and amorous loyalty are altogether foreign to their mentality. This has ramifications for normal society, as gays – especially during the Baby Boomer generation – have contributed their part to normalizing divorce, swinging, and promiscuity.

Disinhibition: Again, they just can’t help themselves: They constantly sexually harass normal people, and have absolutely no control over their own aberrant inclinations. Their behavior is wholly impulsive and high time-preference; they are unable to refuse drugs, unable to refuse condom-less sex with AIDS-positive strangers, and usually unable to plan anything ahead – they “live for the moment,” and as one would expect, die young. They are entirely controlled by Satan.

Cultural Marxism: The Frankfurt School Cultural Marxists and the like-minded Freudians have pioneered and disseminated advocacy for homosexuality and various bizarre sexual behaviors. These guys hate us and intend our destruction, therefore anything and everything they advocate is intended to destroy us.

Bad Aesthetics: Homosexuality is viscerally repulsive. Knowing that the dude right next to you engages in anal sex with men is vomit-inducing. Beauty is truth, and evolution has instilled in us natural aversion to the unhealthy; we can tell ugliness and vileness when we witness them, and instinctively know to back away and stay away. Those whose instincts don’t tell them to avoid homosexuals have something wrong with their brain-wiring and/or brain-structure. By tolerating gays around, society makes itself disgusting. While this alone may not be, and may not register as, a sufficient argument to ban the gays, it does point us to a valid field of inquiry: Why does homosexuality intensely trigger our healthy disgust reflex? Of course, beyond it being a dead-end reproductive strategy, it’s also a recipe for quick premature death from disease; it’s also eerie, like seeing mutants, androids, or cadavers, alerting us that something is terribly wrong. Gay is in uncanny valley, and our aversion to uncanny valley is generally healthy.

Leftism: Homosexuals are naturally prone to leftist politics, as leftism is, by no means exclusively but in substantial part, a project to normalize the abnormal for this or that reason; being abnormal themselves, homosexuals are automatically inclined to support general left-wing causes, be it race-denialism, socialism, Feminism, and really any form of artificial egalitarianism or war by the unsuccessful against the successful. Notice how homos constantly blame everyone else for their afflictions, instead of examining their own behavior; so no surprise they’re in a coalition with like-minded anti-civilizational forces against civilization. Gays are pro-black, pro-brown, and pro-Muslim. Muslims hate gays, but gays like Muslims because Muslims hate us. Gays inherently and naturally tend to treason, so need to be excluded from power, and, more importantly, excluded from status, for if gays are high status, treason is high status, and if treason is high status, it appears that treason prospers, and if it appears that treason prospers, then treason will prosper. Gay status is the overthrow of King, Crown, Throne, Altar, and the massacre of our soldiers.

Objectively Aberrant: Homosexuality is a natural dead-end. If a man is attracted to other men, and is not attracted to women, he is not very likely to pass his genes forwards. It’s an evolutionary death sentence.

Slippery Slope: “acceptance” of gay has led to Gay Marriage, normalization of “sex change” disfigurement, Drag Queen Story Hour, and so on. Once sodomy is tolerated, a Pandora’s Box from Tartarus full of Hell-spawn is opened, and other perversities follow suit. For example, cuckoldry, which cuckolds now call “polyamory.” Presumably, one reason that some people support faggotry is because they themselves are perverted in some or other way, and by clamoring for homosexuality to be normalize, they seek to thereby open the door for their own perversity, as with World War Tranny.

Confusion: Just generally, having gays around creates endless confusion about what is sexually normal and what isn’t. People are being bombarded with all kids of nonsense about “orientation” and “gender identity” and so on, and some are lost in the confusion and can’t sort out what is going on. We seek to usher in clarity: People need to know what is expected of them and where they are hierarchically stationed. Homosexuals disrupt clarity, bringing turmoil and vagueness into both day-to-day life and into the political scene. Being neither fish nor fowl, being sexually inverted, they’ve intentionally proceeded to insert “queerness” into manifold aspects of life, from clothing to school curricula to 56 different sexual identifications on Facebook to whatever else.

Preference Politics: The homosexuals have made it impossible to discuss sexuality in a logical way, because sexual politics have been marred by “preference politics”: The idea that your political objectives correspond to, and merely boil down to advocacy for, your personal sexual proclivities. Thus, when I say “Attraction to 13-year-old chicks with boobs is part of normal healthy male sexuality,” most readers automatically assume that I have a “fetish for jailbait,” and will call me “hebephile” or “ephebophile” for it; I will then have to spend ages explaining that my own preferences (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with it. Since gays are all about preference politics, politics in service of a specific sexual preference, people assume that all discussions of sexuality must likewise necessarily revolve around preference politics. Yes, it is frustrating to be unable to say “It’s normal for men to be aroused by 13-year-olds” without people assuming that I, personally, have a specific fetish for 13-year-olds, and am saying what I’m saying solely due to my own personal fetish. That “This person is engaging in preference politics” is now most people’s null hypothesis is the result of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and so on similar perverts forcing themselves on normal society. Even though gays are a tiny minority, they soak up all the cultural space, leaving no room for straights.

Hypersexuality: Gays are hypersexual, and invest tremendous efforts acquiring more and more sexual experiences, to the exclusion of other pursuits. Their excessive lust leads them, and whoever is politically influenced by them, to prioritize gay sex above e.g. scientific-technological advancement and cultural creation. The faggot’s quest to attain ever greater sexual pleasure takes precedence over whatever else he wants to do, so often they end up doing nothing else but cruising for sex. Individually, that’s self-destructive; on the political level, it results in gay parasitism, e.g., gays using our tax money to subsidize gayness, instead of other things. By and large, homosexuals are not “also gay,” but rather, are “gay above all else.”

Biological Leninism: Another reason that the homos support left-wing causes is because of Biological Leninism: Since their status under normal circumstances is low indeed, gays attach themselves to and promote whatever political faction that promises to artificially raise their status. They are natural members of the left-wing coalition, and are status-invested in maintaining the Cathedral, for without the Cathedral’s elevation of the gays, they would rapidly lose their social prestige. They may not rank as highly as transsexuals and abortionists on the Progressive Totem Pole, but under any healthy system they’d be absolute pariahs, or dead, so they side with the Cathedral. Moreover, they need a Cathedral to normalize homosexuality through “point deer, make horse,” i.e., by collectively and unanimously pretending that homosexuals are totally normal. Without the Cathedral, people will once again notice that the deer is not in fact a horse – that gays are not anything remotely normal.

Pedo-Hysteria: Hysteria about “pedophiles” is in large part a consequence of Gay Liberation, as many homosexuals have a distinct preference for prepubescent boys. The current witch hunts against “pedophiles,” which result in multitudes of normal heterosexual men getting sent to the slammer for bogus sex-crimes, is facilitated by both the presence of homosexuality in the social atmosphere (leading to the invention of the “pedophilia” anti-concept) and by actual homosexual predation on boys who are often prepubescent. Pedo-hysteria doesn’t allow us to notice that Humbert Humbert doesn’t creep into the bedrooms of 9-year-olds, but that it’s the other way around. Furthermore, LGBT politics are fundamentally hostile to male sexuality and to heterosexuality in general, because inherent to LGBT politics is a re-definition of normalcy to exclude old-fashioned normality.

Priests vs. Warriors: Homosexuals give power to the leftist priesthood, the lawyers, the judges, the professoriat, official science and the official mass media, and in turn are supported by the leftist priesthood, because acceptance of homosexuality rests on rule-by-priests. A society ruled by warriors does not tolerate faggotry and male effeminacy, so faggots are naturally inimical to warrior rule and to warriors; they feel much more comfortable when society is ruled by priests, and are adept at playing holiness signalling games. Any Priesthood not explicitly anti-homosexual sooner or later becomes homosexual. Hence the problem with the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Conspiracy: Gays always conspire, form secret cliques and secret clubs, as for example the band of perverts now running the Vatican, which gives them leverage over those not in the know; that’s one way in which gays acquire power. Their conspiratorial behavior makes them dangerous, because in order to govern effectively, the government – which is fundamentally a conspiracy – needs to eliminate other conspiracies that vie for power. Government being a conspiracy, it should be the only conspiracy in place; thus, by having secret societies, the gays undermine the government, and it’s in the interests of the ruler to uncover the gay cliques and to eliminate them.

Cosmopolitanism: Homosexuals are atomized individuals not invested in the prosperity of their tribe; generally leaving no descendants behind them, being genetic dead-ends, they freely associate with members of other tribes, and form alliances based on homosexuality, rather than on ethnicity, or geography, or religion. They are outsiders and outcasts within their own societies and among their own ethnicities, so they tend to ally themselves with other outsiders and outcasts, and with any global power promising to advance their agenda, perceiving their in-group to include fellow gays and perverts, and to exclude most everyone else.

Suicidal Ideation: Gays are not only apt to self-destruct, a quintessential feature of their psyches; they also flaunt their self-destructive proclivities before everyone else, seeking – and, through propaganda in the media and in the entertainment industry, succeeding – to normalize suicidality. They are sick, morbid people, and they spread their morbidity around; misery doth love company. By making suicidal ideation “cool,” they have wreaked damage to whoever absorbed that idea and became depressed, dysfunctional as a result. By inflicting their suicidal ideation and self-destructive modes of thinking and behavior on the rest of society, they have further reduced the fertility of all those malleable to be influenced by fashion, which is now determined by gays. The TFR, and overall happiness and satisfaction in life, suffer under the homosexuals’ cultural domination; gays aggravate civilization’s downward spiral.


120 Responses to “Gay needs to be suppressed”

  1. Arktos says:

    [*censored for lack of context. Who or what are you denouncing as intrinsically disordered? Quote and reply in thread*]

  2. info says:

    “Pedo-Hysteria: Hysteria about “pedophiles” is in large part a consequence of Gay Liberation, as many homosexuals have a distinct preference for prepubescent boys. ”

    Looking back at this post. And seeing many anon comments about this subject see many people with a death-wish for those who are guilty however misdirected now that it is.

  3. […] has a good post with dozens of reasons to suppress the gay. None of them on their own are wholly convincing. We […]

  4. Anonymous says:

    Allthetropes gives us another reason to hate gay. Their example neatly coincides with the 1960s restart of feminism.

    Up until the 1960s, it was common for children’s comic books to have two (or more) male protagonists who shared a house and had no interest in women. Such duos include Tintin and Captain Haddock, Blake and Mortimer, Spirou and Fantasio, Batman and Robin, and several others. A four-way example would be Biggles and his three chums, Algy, Ginger and Bertie. However, it gradually became more and more common (at least among adults) to interpret this kind of relationship as gay, which lead to a Gay Panic that made comic writers and publishers abandon this trope. For example, in Batman Dick Grayson’s Aunt Harriet moved in with Bruce Wayne and Dick (this was explicitly done by the publisher to reduce Ho Yay intepretations of the comic), while Bruce also started dating women.

  5. ERTZ says:

    “Homophobia” of heterosexual men exists because gays kill heterosexual men and their families.

    The spectrum of disgust towards gays in hetero men can range from just wanting to keep one’s distance, to outright murderous rage.

    Gays kill hetero men and their families because gays are extremely promiscuous
    and can accumulate thousands of sex partners even when only in their 20s;
    they are an reservoir as well source of old/new sexual pathogens.

    So how do they kill hetero men and families when they only have sex with other men?
    The link are the bisexual men – who, of course, have sex with gays and women.
    This is where the old and newly formed STDs of the gays enter heterosexual men and their families.

    Homophobia, gay hate, is found in all heterosexual men.
    How did this emotion evolve?

    Our ancestors had no practical medicine – catching a STD meant lowered sexual attractiveness (genitalia often – not always- became ugly and stank – watching genitalia and licking them, tasting them – cunnilingus and fellatio- are seen in many mammalian species, and serve as some kind of check for STDs), infertility, or death; each of the three was an evolutionary dead end.
    With gays causing/breeding new and transferring STDs at much higher rates, every mutation that made hetero men feel disgust/hate towards gays meant an immediate reproductive advantage, and the “gay-hate gene” could flourish.

    Why do gays exist? They are genetic dead ends.
    Actually, they seem to be just an extreme side effect of bisexuality:
    Bisexuals enjoy higher reproductive success, because they can “practice” with their own sex, and then translate that in more/earlier confidence in heterosexual sex.
    While bisexual women have not more offspring, they have (had) a higher reproduction RATE – they got children much earlier than hetero women – and thus their bisexual trait spread in the population, until it was limited by the counter-effects of higher STD load.

    If you want to eradicate gays, it is futile to kill gays.
    You must kill their source: WOMEN, that is, bisexual women, for those are giving birth to gay men. Evidence suggests that gays are merely a side effect of bisexual women as a reproductive strategy – bisexual women have (had) a so high reproduction rate, that their giving birth to gays produced still higher net reproductive success – and thus gays still exist.
    So, if you want to get rid of gays, you must exterminate bisexual women, the gays’ mothers, sisters etc., it’s them who carry on the gay gene and make it spread.
    The old religions did not incorporate that thought in their doctrines, because they did not know about genetics, it seems.

    Killing gays directly does nothing to get rid of them; they’ll just regrow.
    You must kill the women.

    • Dave says:

      Is there any evidence of a biological link between gay men and lesbian women? I would expect gay men to have exceptionally feminine, fertile, and heterosexual sisters, because without a lot of nieces and nephews they’d be a genetic dead end.

      • ERTZ says:

        In the past, religion was politically used as the (I have difficulty to translate this, in German it’s “Letztbegründungsfunktion”, somewhat like “last/ultimate reason-giving function”) basis for political power – God said nobility and king are instituted by him, so you better accept how it is or eternal damnation into hell is your fate.

        With the decline of religion and the rise of science to “work magic”,
        science became the last/ultimate reason-giving instance.
        It became political.
        It became dangerous or useful to political power, and thus was subjugated under political power.

        This is nothing new: It already was abused for economic reasons.
        While one cannot easily falsify science in physics or chemistry (there is not much interest for power or money in it anyway), one can do so in biology or medicine, for example.
        Climate science today is another example.
        Biology, especially, can have powerful political effects.
        For example, it’s “politically correct” that subspecies/races suddenly do not exist when dealing with human sub-populations.
        Many examples of outright scientific lies becoming scientific dogma exist and keep existing, for example the sugar lie (sugar is behind obesity+many diseases, not meat/saturated fat, which are actually healthy), but sugar is addictive, put into almost everything, and highly profitable for both food industry and, in it’s effects, for the pharmaceutical and medical industry.
        There are many old ads that have doctors and scientists recommend cigarettes as healthy, if you look for them, etc.
        Scientists are regular humans that need money, and money comes from politics or industry. Scientists are easily intimidated or bought, and if some powerful interest group does not like some scientific findings, it’s almost trivially easy to make sure counter-studies that find the opposite results, or at least question the unwanted prior findings, so that the public is misinformed or at least kept in confusion.

        Keep that in mind if you deal with science: In theory it’s a tool to approach truth, in practice much less so, because it’s made by humans and has large impact on profits and political power.

        Currently, for political and economic reasons, gays/women etc. are glorified, while regular men are humiliated.

        For example, when industry wanted women to work instead of having children, the media was suddenly full of “scientific studies” that older women are completely fit for giving birth, or how great egg freezing works.

        Never underestimate corruption of science for political or financial gain.

        Here is an older (before the pro-gay, pro-women, anti-men propaganda took effect) scientific opinion on homosexuality from 1993:


        You cannot naively trust scientific public findings anymore;
        scientists privately usually do know the truth of their fields, but are “disincentivized” (they need jobs and money, too) to
        tell the truth publicly.
        For example, here in Germany we have a Professor in climate science, who published a long and publicly, medially widely disseminated study on how anthropogenic climate change is real – if you indeed did read the (200 pages long and very complicated) study and took the time to understand what it says, you clearly found its conclusion is that human-caused climate change is inaccurate – this way the professor saved bits of his dignity, but still served propaganda requirements.

        It’s quite obvious that homosexuality runs in families.
        It’s difficult to track, because, at least in the past, it very often was kept secret.

  6. Joe says:




    Because of the clinical history of the word “homosexual,” it is used in an offensive way to suggest that gay people are somehow not “normal” or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s


    Gay / Lesbian / Bisexual / Pansexual /Queer

    It is important to ask what term a person prefers and not assign arbitrarily

    There are more naughty words on the list for those who are curious.

    • You are right, faggpts are a disease like addiction self destructive. Its being forced on all as fits with the plans to destroy Christ .. And ultimately humanity. All this normalizatiion of insecure freaks makes me sick. A fatso in a library who has boobs and a penus should be sent to arkham aslyum npr around children.
      Levitcus a man shall not lay with another man. That gay president barry s. Is such a fairy ..its a joke how blind ppl are to his wife mike big scholng bulgung out at tv seeming each every day. Gross.

  7. Octavian says:

    “The reactionary state will in theory throw men who lie with a males as with a woman off skyscrapers, or publicly hang them, or something like that – something terrifying, deadly, and, most importantly, publicly humiliating. Without the public humiliation, nothing we do will have the desired effect. No society has ever managed to kill off gays as efficiently as they kill off themselves and each other, thus merely killing gays is of limited effectiveness. It is essential to kill them in a way that lowers their status.”


    It is a fact that being a fag is immensely prestigious. And being persecuted for being a fag is even more prestigious.

    Immorality is high status – which is weird, in the classic sense.

    Wonder how much access to elite status is governed by participation in unholy activity. It is certainly a thing.

    At any rate, thanks for the read: easily one of the best pieces on the Gay I’ve seen in a while.

    Ironically enough I published a short post today on the role gay marriage plays in geopolitical submission to progress. Guess there is something in the water.

    • jim says:

      The purpose of political correctness is to humiliate and degrade by demanding that people accept an obvious lie, thus demonstrating who has the power and who shall submit.

      point deer, make horse, 指鹿為馬.

      PC is the opposite of the old honor codes. Instead of an honor code, we have a dishonor code. Instead of compliance testing potential elite members for courage, honor, and dignity, we compliance test them for cowardice, lying, and groveling.

  8. Eli says:

    Sorry, unrelated to this post comment:

    Trump is voicing his support for taking away my gun rights based on social media flagging. Kinda like that bipolar ex’s restraining order that you knew were coming eventually, just now pursued by a random bureaucrat who thinks your opinion of him is “threatening.” That’s on top of promoting his power-grabby feminist Ivanka’s female empowerment movements internationally.

    Is this just god-emperor playing 6.12D (he’s now working in fractal dimension too) chess? I doubt it, but always like humoring your explanations and hypotheses.

    • jim says:

      That is not how I read what Trump is saying.

      • Eli says:

        Yes, I sincerely wish I could read it differently. How *do* you read?

        • jim says:

          I see Trump on you tube explaining he is totally in favor of a bunch of very bad ideas, and in the same breath explaining how getting them through congress is so very difficult, so what we are likely to wind up with is, alas tighter background checks.

          Which sounds like Trump’s usual threedee chess.

    • The Cominator says:

      Nothing will happen with the red flag laws, Trump wants to show “he cares” to centrist by pretending a littler verbal support but hes not going to commit political suicide.

  9. BC says:

    Man that civil war is rushing upon us. Reddit is completely dominated by commies since Trump started kowtowing to the left after the shootings. It’s interesting watching how such events create political energy.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Wait. Trump says things in the heat of the moment that have a habit of not going anywhere. It is what happens when you are under the microscope 24/7.

    • Not Tom says:

      I saw no kowtowing. He blamed video games, which is so absurd that I think he did it on purpose just to be absurd. Congressional Republicans are a different story, hyping up Red Flag laws, but it’ll be interesting to see if they’re really serious about it or if they’re taking a page from the Trump playbook and plan to let the legislation quietly die as soon as everyone’s forgotten about the shootings.

      Also, how is this on topic?

  10. Encelad says:

    Slippery slope:
    I was surfing the twitter timeline of woke capital, orwell&goode and other accounts exposing globohomo degeneracy. Someone dropped this: (for non clickers: zooph. Activist)

    This guy is serious. Obviously evil and insane, but not stupid. Conversely, he cleverly uses every progressive shibboleth for making his point. That’s when I started to grok Jim’s teaching why consent culture is evil. If marriage is all about consent and love, then you get capital punishment for sleeping with your wife if she is not on the mood, while defiling a 8 year old boy is ok, provided that you lure him the correct way. And in fact, this is that degenerate’s position on the matter.

  11. As indicated above I am not sure straight/gay cuts reality better than the Greco-Roman penetrator/penetrated. Which would map to dominant/submissive… except that Greeks and Romans had a weird tendency to fall madly in love with boys they fucked. Full on oneitis. Why? It is weird.

    I have a suspicion that strong subjugation of women makes them less interesting. Not that modern sluts are very interesting either, but the optimal level of subjugation for maximizing female interestingess is probably less than optimizing for eugenic fertility which is the purpose of patriarchy. Everything has trade-offs. I mean, the Muslim women I see in Europe are super boring. They seem to have all flirtiness drilled out of them. Cannot even walk in a feminine, hip-swaying way. And don’t expect a witty, stimulating conversation either.

    I mean. There is a lot of nostalgy around for the magic 1950’s. Women were clearly less subjugated than before that, but more than now. Wasn’t that a period where the level of subjugation for maximum interestingness was just right? Low enough to be actually sexy and feminine, high enough to still be submissive and obedient. But for the eugenic fertility purpose of patriarchy it was not enough.

    So if strongly patriarchical societies have the side-effect of producing boring women, it might mean some men will fall madly in love with boys. That is just a hunch, I am not convinced, but it may be the case.

    • Adjudicator says:

      Normally, I would find the proposals extreme. However, reading the comment Jim mentioned, along with re-reading some of Spandrell’s older articles allow me to understand the reasoning behind such measures.

      Relevant Links:

    • info says:

      “I mean, the Muslim women I see in Europe are super boring. They seem to have all flirtiness drilled out of them. Cannot even walk in a feminine, hip-swaying way. And don’t expect a witty, stimulating conversation either. ”

      Ancient Hebreic religion and Christianity strikes a better balance.

      Christian women are more likely to be flirty as well as witty and stimulating compared to burkha clad ninjasuit wahabi women.

      Because it allows for more freedom and henceforth expression of personality compared to other Patriarchies. Compared the treatment of Jesus of women to Muhammad. A marked difference.

    • jim says:

      Fifties was the gap between first wave and second wave feminism. In retrospect, burning social capital inherited from before first wave feminism. Good, but fragile and unsustainable. Divorce laws were brutally one sided against men, it was just that divorce was a lot harder. The age of consent was high and rising, reflecting a policy of blaming men for female misconduct.

      The fifties were nice times, but on a slippery slope.

    • I’ve hung out with the Amish, and their women aren’t feminine in the French dilettante smoking a cigarette on a holder in an absinthe bar kind of way, but very feminine in a down-to-earth playful joie-de-vivre sort of way.

      Buttsex doesn’t spread because women are boring, if anything the causality is backwards and women stop performing femininity when their Arab, Greek, and Roman men are too busy buggering little boys to pay attention to them.

      I’m thinking of the medieval noblewomen who was educated for the gratification of the men around her as a counterexample.

    • Not strong subjugation but wrongheaded subjugation. The Muslim way is to make women property and suppress female education and aestheticism. The typical purple pill approach is to curb female access to education, but have them free-range.

      A proper reactionary position would be to make women property, but invest in that property’s value with education, specifically from an art appreciation and aesthetic standpoint. Piano lessons and museum trips, rather than Man-hating and Whoring 101.

      Dunno about its relation to buttsechs, but personally, I can’t stand stupid, shallow women who have no aesthetic value, and if I have daughters, they will not be allowed to remain in a state of ignorance.

      • Correct.To encourage that investment in the value of daughters, bride price is necessary. No bride price = socialism type problems, neglecting investment etc.

        • The Cominator says:

          I grew up in the epicenter of overentitled overeducated c**ts, Eastern Massachussetts.

          Educating women is generally a bad idea, a woman who taught basic literacy who then educated herself that now she might be interesting but women should not be long term guests of the priesthood even in our system…

        • Not Tom says:

          It’s too easy to abuse. I posted a strawman proposal for bride prices in a previous thread, but admitted there were problems with it. Maybe it can work in some fashion, but it absolutely must never give fathers higher status than husbands. Fathers need to be strongly disincentivized from demanding unreasonable prices, and fathers who can’t control their daughters need to forfeit those prices (i.e. price is contingent on proof of virginity on consummation). And that’s still prone to abuse by the daughters.

          Some cultures have dowries – literally the opposite of a bride price. Dowries were common in Greece, Rome, and all over medieval Europe. I’m not going to dismiss the idea out of hand, but it needs a better defense than “it’s socialist to not have one”.

          • info says:

            Problems with dowries is that it penalizes poor fathers with daughters. Suppose he has beautiful daughters with good character. Why shouldnt he be able to afford to give his daughters away in marriage which would be greatly helped by bride price.

            And such cultures apart from christian ones have bad histories of murder of their baby daughters no doubt exacerbated by the dowry system.

            Which caused population problems in the Roman Empire until the Christians took over by virtue of their prohibition of baby murder inside and outside the womb.

            • Not Tom says:

              I didn’t claim that we necessarily need dowries, only that the historical prevalence of dowries stands in stark contrast to the proposal of bride prices. It’s not a fact that should be casually ignored or dismissed.

              Yes, poor fathers would be at a disadvantage. We want eugenic fertility, remember?

              • info says:

                Eugenic fertility is still possible even with poor fathers I think for the female side. In the scenario I talk about even if such cases are rare.

                Plus this opens up far more variation for selection as far more men can give away their daughters to anyone. Which is good for eugenics.

                So long as the male side is still under primary selection for quality. Which is in accordance with biology:

                Its better to marry a poorer virtuous beautiful woman than a bitchy heiress.

                • Not Tom says:

                  1st and 3rd paragraphs are literally contradictory: “we can still have eugenic fertility on the female side, even though it’s primarily the male side responsible for quality”. Over 90% of the variation in every trait occurs in the males.

                  2nd paragraph is just strange and incoherent. “Opening up more variation” is not eugenic, otherwise mass immigration would be eugenic. It’s literally the opposite; what an elite group decides to “open up” to has to be very carefully chosen and tightly controlled in order to maintain eliteness.

                  Bride prices invert nearly every aspect of the natural order. Fathers do not care who their sons marry and aren’t going to help pay an exorbitant price, so those prices become a way for the old and stupid to discriminate against the young and ambitious. Boys who would have been perfectly suitable are shut out simply because the father wants a new TV. The system confers higher status on women than men, and higher status on fathers than husbands. And you still haven’t addressed any of the serious hazards, like blue-pilled dads using them to support their daughters’ sexual misbehavior.

                  A father’s job is primarily to raise competent, hardworking and manly sons, and marry any daughters off as quickly as possible. Any system that incentivizes delaying marriage is going to result in more marriages being delayed.

                  I’m open to a liberty-based approach in which fathers can attach whatever ridiculous conditions they want to their daughters, but if their daughters run off to take a ride on the cock carousel then said conditions are null and void. In other words, bride prices aren’t technically illegal, but the state will refuse to enforce them or permit private enforcement of them for non-virgins, and will instead not-so-politely inquire as to why shotgun marriage has yet to occur.

                • jim says:

                  High bride prices are apt to result in men delaying marriage. Kings control the bride price down, to give young men a motive to contribute to society, to work, to pay taxes, and to fight for family, tribe, nation, King, and God. A shortage ensues, whereupon the King and priest ration brides to one per customer.

        • Romanticism is Cancer says:

          Mandatory bride price is prone to be abused by Blue Pilled dads, which there are all too many, who’ll make it excessively high in order to hang on to their precious little pumpkins. “We need to institute a policy of pride price” means “I don’t want to give my daughter away in marriage when she is a teenager, and here’s a convenient method to make it so.”

          Instead, need a Single Daughter Tax to be imposed on daddy. SDT will be 0 till age 8, from 8 to 12 it will be 10% of your income, and from 12 to 15 it will be 20% of your income, and from 15 onward 35% of your income.

          • The Cominator says:

            Idea might not be bad but the age ranges are too low. Average marriage age should be around 14-16… and I don’t think there should be any tax until then.

          • Not Tom says:

            You can use both the carrot and the stick, and make tax proportional to the father’s bride price. That was my strawman proposal a few weeks back. But there are still vectors of female abuse, even if fathers and husbands try to reach cooperate-cooperate equilibrium.

          • info says:


            I am opposed to SDT entirely. If they dont give away their daughters. Thats on them.

            We dont need pathetic fathers in law.

            Plus as I concur with Contamiator. Your proposal incentivizes potential evil.

    • The Cominator says:

      I do not want Islamic style patriarchy I want Japanese style patriarchy.

      No Islamic fashion, no strict segregation. Higher education of women is a bad idea and a huge waste of resources though. Female education if it exists should be charm school based.

    • Eli says:

      Fixable. They had charm schools for girls in the 19th century, to get social graces instilled. If you want an attitude and real danger… well, that’s another topic.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Good looking and sexy women are sexy and good looking; and the side that looks sexier is the side that wins.

      That muslims cover up their women is partly a measure of control, but i would say more broadly, is an expression of their anti-civilizational aesthetic poverty, expressed through puritanical iconoclasm; such examples as defacement and banishment of art, statuary, historical relics, and other nice things civilizations build to become nicer; such examples that, in themselves, are simply more physical and visibly obvious indicators of more subterranean cognitive patterns, that will express themselves in a variety of situations.

  12. Big Brutha says:

    To paraphrase Churchill, “Gays are always either at your throat or at your feet.” They have to be suppressed and they will be.

    I have a gay brother and I told him in 2015 (even before Trump’s election) that he needed to find himself a nice deep closet to hide in.

    I told him for now his type are ascendant but that if he wants to survive the future that is coming he needs to make plans now to make his identity as a gay man a secret.

    He balked at that, obviously, but I explained: “You think society is just going to continue until it’s one big fabulous homo orgy all the time. You’re wrong. At some point that ends and it’s going to end in your lifetime. It either ends because the U.S. breaks up and in the ensuing chaos your kind get killed by those taking advantage of the chaos to steal or settle scores and seeing a population ripe for exploitation. Or it ends because a hard right reactionary government takes control and kills you because it can’t exist with you around as an openly gay man. Or it ends because a more “vigorous” group comes in and takes control (Chinese, Muslims, Mexicans, doesn’t really matter) and kills you because there’s no place in their society for an openly gay man.” He’s not publicly flaming which is good but I know he hasn’t prepared for the inevitable either.

  13. Dave says:

    What would the history of the 20th century look like if Röhm had purged Hitler instead of the other way around? Besides the Vatican, has a sovereign state ever been taken over by a cabal of shameless homosexuals, and how did it turn out?

    • The Cominator says:

      Deposed by force much earlier and much easier.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Two countries in the EU have openly homosexual PMs at this time: Ireland and Luxemburg.

      I don’t know much about the LU one except for the occasional amusing picture of PM spouses.

      The Irish one has presided over a lot of poz-spreading.

      France’s Macron seems gay as well, but not quite openly.

  14. orochijes says:

    I don’t think of any type of execution as any more “status lowering” than any other, though I do think some are more terrifying that others. What makes one execution more lowly than another?

    • jim says:

      That the victim is seen to be powerless and mistreated by other men. Hence stoning or tossing from a high building.

      • The Cominator says:

        Pelted and mocked by the crowd at the very public execution.

      • info says:

        Humilation that jesus endured before his crucifixtion. Even better if the criminal whilst stripped of his clothing soils his underwear.

    • A status lowering execution is one that people will take sick pleasure in, in the same way people enjoy gore vids on the internet. Humans enjoy violence, especially violence against the outgroup. We need executions that inspire behavior like crowds of southerners taking souvenirs from the niggers they hung, or the crowds in Paris that tried to catch guillotine blood on their handkerchiefs.

      It’s not being thrown off a building that lowers the crime’s status, it’s the fact that the crowd is taking bets on how high you’ll bounce. A solemn execution behind closed doors creates a martyr. An execution that’s an enjoyable spectacle makes potential offenders realize that not only will they be killed by the state, but the masses will laugh and cheer their death. Designing a good, crowd-pleasing execution is an art that we’ve sadly lost.

      • The Cominator says:

        Once a month AFTER services on the day of the rest when good weather is anticipated should be execution day…

        There should be games, MMA fights/boxing matches and dances (with good classic swing and 50s type dancable music) before the executions.

        Sometimes public executions can also create a martyr you want to make sure subversive leftists and such are drugged so they scream and terror and piss themselves before they are hanged.

      • The Cominator says:

        Another thing… Since we want women to see criminals as low status we very very very much want women to voluntarily attend the corporal punishment and execution festivities.

        So for instance some of their normal restrictions should be lifted for that time. In particular I think under normal circumstances we should have strict sumptuary laws for what people can wear in public… but they should be lifted for the punishment revels.

        We want to discourage husbands and fathers from doing anything to prevent their wives and daughters from attending the punishment revels but we don’t want to violate freehold too much… what should be done.

      • Disco Inferno (ISIS) says:

        Death by public celebratory immolation will get the job done. Scorched, charred bodies, and piles of ashes, by definition have low status. In the Old Testament, sluts (for instance) were routinely treated thus by their male owners:

        Genesis 38:24: “About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.” Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!””

        Notice, by the way, that his response was not “I will seek out who defiled this precious little pumpkin and burn him to death.” No, he immediately suggested burning her to death due to her bringing dishonor upon his family. This is customary among non-cuckold populations. Dad’s response to Cindy having sex with Joey is burning Cindy down in flames into a pile of ash, not burning Joey. Pay attention, sentimental feminized white knights.

        (Leviticus 21:9 commands: “If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by prostituting herself, she profanes her father; she must be burned in the fire.” She, not any of the men she slept with)

        Or perhaps Dad should follow the instructions of Deuteronomy 22, and choose to turn Cindy not into a big pile of smoldering ashes, but merely into a target practice for jovial stone throwers:

        “20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”

        (Reaction, however, is a merciful ideology, so it doesn’t advocate burning or stoning sluts, rather, it advocates forcing them to be possessed — very much like cows owned by farmers — by the woman’s ultimate, unquestioned, and absolute alpha: a husband. Blue Pilled Dad will be made to back the fuck off)

        Anyway, back to the gay issue, I think that immolation, stoning, and Gravity Wins are the 3 preferable choices, being both terrorizing and status lowering.

        • What’s more, burning at the stake is even fairly humane, as smoke inhalation kills long before the flesh burns. Try putting your head directly over your campfire next time you build one- you’d be out like a light in less than a minute.

          • Zach says:

            Not an apt comparison. Many factors to consider with burning at the stake because the methodology used was highly variable. But overall if you stand on a pile of wood, start the flame and wait… it would hurt like a mother fucker for a long enough time to matter.

            Good blog by the way.

      • A good status-lowering execution is something that’ll look morbidly funny seen from the bleachers. Ludicrous gibs, ridiculous post-hanging thrashing, slapstick etc. No sadism, just lethal horseplay.

        I think Fatboy Kim is onto something with his executions by AA gun. A man shot in the heart which loved his country so much is tragic and poignant. A man turned into jelly is sort of funny.

      • A good example of a funny death is Marvin (the dead nigger who needs storing) from Pulp Fiction. Tarantino completely destroys any hope of sympathizing with the character by killing him in a ridiculously funny manner. I started laughing like a madman when I first saw that scene.

        • I am now Vlad says:

          An execution should be absolutely serious and somber. It should also have mandatory attendance from the entire society from toddlers to adults who are there to see it from beginning to end.

          Laughter or clowning around at an execution should be met with whipping in minor cases, and execution for rebellion in more extreme cases

          The core of any capital crime is centered about the meaninglessness of life. The execution is a reminder that life is not a meaningless or a joke. And that similar “jokes” will be met with “jokes so funny no one can laugh”

  15. RandomComment says:

    How do trannies fit into this? They are gay but the explanation I’ve read is that they are a response to an invasion being lost.

  16. info says:

    Romans 1:27-31
    “27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

    “29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,”

    The description of the character of the sodomite. Who coincidentally make up many serial murderers. Malicious in their real intent, great and disrupting social relations. Liars and cheaters.

    30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,”

    They are backbiters and drama queens. Inventors of new perversions.

    Proud and boastful of their own greatness.

    31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:”

    Unrelenting in their push for evil, subversion. Untrustworthy, dishonorable.

    “32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    Worthy of destruction.

    • jim says:

      Exactly as the Bible tells it. Men who lie with a man as with a woman tend to display other characteristics undermining cooperation between men.

  17. SeethingsinDC says:

    Jim, please more frequent paragraphing…electrons are free.

  18. There are many theories why normal men instinctively dislike gays. I don’t think signalling hazard is it. That is circular, that requires a pre-existing reason why you wouldn’t want to be seen as gay or bisexual. No, it does not imply disinterest in women. Nor would anyone care. A patriarchy is a rule of fathers, a young man is told to marry the woman the father picks and to make kids, and what desires he follows on the side is unimportant.

    I think the Roman model cuts it better. When Julius Caesar was sent as an envoy to the King of Bithynia, and went in bed with him, there was big scandal. A Roman envoy fucking a foreign king would have been all okay, a sign of Roman dominance. But he was fucked by the foreign king, which was seen as a display of Roman weakness, submissiveness. In a war you just cannot have brothers in arms who actually want to be defeated and enslaved. This the reason, I think. A band of brothers goes out to dominate others. Cannot have men on it with submissive instincts.

    • The Cominator says:

      The fact that gays form alliances based on homosexuality, conspire and tend to molest boys would mean men should instinctively not trust them. BTW speaking of gays running the Vatican… I tend to suspect they have for centuries. When homosexuality wasn’t tolerated among normal men the attraction of a theoretically celibate priesthood would have been all the greater for gays.

      Caesar’s alleged homosexuality was in all likelihood a lie.

      • Well… one thing I suspect that once priestly celibacy got actually enforced, about 1200AD or so, the clergy immediately began to attract low-T, unmanly men. Not necessarily gays, but men from the lower end of the masculinity spectrum. But likely gays, too. And when Luther and Calvin was okay with pastors being married, manly men joined their ranks and this is why Protestants won in about half of European civilization despite all their disadvantages. It was like a of a few alphas defeating many betas kind of fight.

        • Niiiidriveevof says:

          That explanation may be a good hammer, but this is not a nail.

          Clerical celibacy was the tradition at least as early as the third century, and clerical marriage was illegal in the empire of Justinian. Some bishops and priests were already married when they were ordained, but they were obliged to practice continence from that point on: no sex. Numerous councils decreed this rule.

          The East fell away from obedience to these traditions around the latter half of the first millennium, and the West did partially as well. Early in the second millennium, this was corrected.

          The metaphysical frame of this blog has the supernatural order existing as real or as myth purely for the sake of the natural order. Whether or not clerical celibacy makes sense in that frame, its real purpose does not fit in that frame. Celibacy is so that men can devote themselves to the supernatural without the distractions of the natural. In the history of Christianity, its neglect is the exception, not the rule.

          • jim says:

            Clerical celibacy was not a tradition until long after the third century. Clerical celibacy was commended, but not required or expected.

            • James says:

              As I recall, the church founders called for priests to be “a man having a wife”. We have altered this to be “a man having one wife”, but my understanding is that the original greek was more along the lines of, “He needs to be married”, not “he needs to limit himself to a single woman.”

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            “Celibacy is so that men can devote themselves to the supernatural without the distractions of the natural. ”

            Humans do not emerge from the ether. Humans are produced by other humans. If you have a group of humans selected for a trait and then have them be celibate the end result is less of that trait in the population.

        • The Cominator says:

          Ahistorical Papist lies your entire post. Eastern Christianity kept the true tradition and never deviated, clerical celibacy was an innovation that happened when the Western church became papist and adopted the Donatist heresy and the results are a gay anti nationalists church.

          • kawaii_kike says:

            Jesus Christ and the apostles were all celibate. The Western church continued the tradition while the East allowed their priests to profane the holy vocation with sex. While some of the apostles had wives, after they started following Jesus they remained celibate for the rest of their lives.

            • jim says:

              We know that some of the apostles married, therefore not celibate.

            • James says:

              1 Timothy 2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

              It is not ‘unmarried’. He MUST be blameless, and he MUST be married, and he MUST be vigilant, and sober, and so on.

          • Nikolai says:

            Pretty much all the Church Fathers were unmarried celibates, St. Paul encouraged men and women not to get married in order to more fully devote themselves to God. It’s not “innovation” it’s Tradition. Also that’s not what Donatism means.

            Insofar as nationalism is a historically left wing Enlightenment movement, the Church has opposed it. But if you mean nationalism as in preference for your own race, enforced borders, encouraging foreigners to assimilate to their host country’s culture etc. the Church has been staunchly for it up until 40-50 years ago.

            • The Cominator says:

              Under our system encouraging women to avoid marriage will guarantee a quick helicopter ride, it might not be harmful in itself for men so monastic celibacy is ok but clerical celibacy other then monastic makes for a subversive and homosexual priesthood thus should not be allowed. I thought Paul himself was married and clerical celibacy came about in the west so sons would not claim hereditary rights to church fiefs.

              Papism is Donatism, it claims church discipline should be outside and above the civil power. The Donatist said the same thing in the time of Constantine if Donatism then Donatism in Gregory’s time and Donatism now.

              Kk remember when you claimed you opposed prostitution because muh Catholic morality and I informed you that both Aquinas and Augustine said it should be legal please read your own history a bit more before you argue against me on this subject.

              • kawaii_kike says:

                I was well aware of Aquinas’s stance on prostitution. But it was just his opinion, not a dogmatic moral teaching that I must abide by. I am still against prostitution, but I don’t plan on harping on it very much. That’s just how it goes, you moralfag on bastardcide and I’ll moralfag on everything else.

                What in last my comment was incorrect about Catholic history?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Once again Paul was married so incorrect there, nothing proves most of the apostles were unmarried.

                  Bastardcide isn’t needed there will be so few of them under our system, a non celibate clergy very much is needed or the clergy is going to have a lot of fags and troublemakers.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  My mistake, I meant abstinent. I said that some of the apostles had wives. The apostles were either celibate and or abstinent. Men that become priests after they’re married are expected to be abstinent, that has always been Church teaching.

                  We don’t have to force the clergy to marry, we can find other ways of weeding out fags and troublemakers.

                  Here is a quote from St. Gregory the Great:

                  We have found from the report of many that a custom has of old obtained among you, for subdeacons to be allowed to have intercourse with their wives. That any one should any more presume to do this was prohibited by the servant of God, the deacon of our see, under the authority of our predecessor , in this way; that those who at that time had been coupled to wives should choose one of two things, that is, either to abstain from their wives, or on no account whatever presume to exercise their ministry.

                • jim says:


                  Clerical abstinence is a heresy that came into effect at about the same time as Romance.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No proof they were abstinent either.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  I think it’s strongly implied that they were abstinent. No where in the Bible is it referenced that the apostles regularly fuck their wives. There is no record of the apostles having children.
                  How would the apostles have provided for their families if they were busy wandering the country spreading the gospel?

                  But the devil is in the details, biblical interpretation is really the downfall of Christianity.

                • jim says:


                  Old and New Testament says that sexually neglecting the women in your charge is a sin. Therefore, apostles had sex with their wives.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Before the clerical celibacy meme came into existence was a sin for husbands to refuse their wives conjugal relations. I don’t think they fealt the need to mention it.

              • Nikolai says:

                Giving St. Paul a helicopter ride is a very bad idea. Christian societies always had a decent percentage of men and women taking vows of celibacy. More men choose celibate lives than women, so you’ll have to do something about the excess women. You can’t allow men to have multiple wives or else you get the Islamic problem where too many men can’t get wives so they form violent rebellions. I wouldn’t try to out-reaction medieval Christendom.

                The heresy of donatism is that sacraments are invalid if administered by a sinful priest.

                I follow a ton of Orthodox reactionaries, I’ve never heard anyone besides you claim that Catholicism is donatist. Heretics always claim every authority but theirs is invalid, that’s what heretics do. But that’s obviously not what the core of donatism is and it’s rather absurd to claim so.

                Catholicism doesn’t say the Church is above the civil power. It’s always been about union of Church and State. Not above or outside, but united with different spheres of authority and influence.

                By the way, the system you advocate is actually a condemned heresy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Women don’t get to choose to not have husbands that is the core of our system, Peter the Great did not allow young women to become nuns and neither will we.

                  I agree on polygamy and have said so.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  There will be so few women that choose lives of isolated celibacy that it will hardly make a difference on the total sex ratio.
                  If a few women want to devote themselves to God by living lives of virgin celibacy then I think exceptions should be made.

                • The Cominator says:

                  When so many larp as lesbians now because regular men are not meeting their media standard of fucked up alpha I worry far too many will take the option especially if they don’t like their intended. No exceptions.

                  Arranged marriage young if their father fails then subject to being claimed (abducted) for marriage by any honest single man who will take them.

                  Older widows can staff nunneries.

    • Bob says:

      > > If David cannot love Jonathan, hard for the mighty men of David to stick together.

      >That is circular, that requires a pre-existing reason why you wouldn’t want to be seen as gay or bisexual.

      I wondered about this, and I think I have an answer.

      Suppose everyone in the group doesn’t mind being thought of as gay. While if David loves Jonathon, people wonder if they’re gay, and no one thinks that’d be bad, it might hurt cohesion and trust, because of potential jealousy or something like it. A gay will want to be in Jonathon’s place and resent him for it. If no gay, then no spurned affections and no hurt feelings, so no drama.

    • jim says:

      > That is circular, that requires a pre-existing reason why you wouldn’t want to be seen as gay or bisexual

      If David and Jonathan gay, or suspected of being gay, other men will suspect them of plotting against the other mighty men and defecting on the mighty men – see the Bible’s accurate depiction of gay conduct. If the mighty men expected to be betrayed, hard for them to rule.

  19. Korth says:

    The association between ghey and shamelessness has been around for quite a while:

    Aesop, Fables 528 (from Chambry 118) (trans. Gibbs) (Greek fable C6th B.C.) :
    “After he had created people, Zeus immediately implanted in them all the possible human character traits, but he forgot about Aiskhyne (Aeschyne, Shame). Since he didn’t know how to get Aiskhyne (Shame) inside the human body, he ordered her to go in from behind. At first Aiskhyne protested, considering Zeus’s request to be beneath her dignity. When Zeus kept insisting, she said, ‘All right, I will go in there, on the condition that if anything–or Eros (Carnal Love)–comes in there after me, I will leave immediately.’
    As a result, people who engage in sodomy have no sense of shame.”

  20. eldritch_dude says:

    Damn Jim I was going through my blogs after staying up all night and you hit me with this massive wall of text I’m going to have to go through.

  21. Is BDSM inherently gay? That’s an interesting idea but I think too hasty a judgement. For instance, I don’t have a gay bone in me, my but I do enjoy spanking women. Men spanking and doing other “sadistic” things to women was the main theme of Victorian BDSM erotica literature, from Nell in Bridewell to The Way Of A Man With A Maid. Damsels-in-distress stories were thinly veiled BDSM erotica in the fifties and sixties, the kind of booklets that featured Nazis whipping women on the cover. Women in prison movies, from Jesse Franco’s movies (Bamboo House of Dolls and others) to recently Amy Hesketh’s Maleficarum and other movies, brutal but excellent. Femdom and gay BDSM happened too, but the primary kind at least in popular culture was maledom, femsub. I.e. the normal one.

    The best of this genre was hands down Pauline Reage’s The Story of O. Which gave the name to Roissy. Nobody suspected that Reage, a very modest looking woman, dreamed about being tied up and whipped by men. Many women do. And many men enjoy doing it to them. And it is not gay.

    Perhaps, there are kinds of BDSM that are gay. Those that do not tie into these classical master punishing a slave things, but do weird stuff with various medical devices and suchlike to the genitals. That is rather disgusting.

    I would not “give” the BDSM genre to gays. It is too good for that.

    • Rereading it, gimp suits, sexual torture, scat, sounds like you mean precisely that second kind of BDSM that I described as disgusting. Yes. That is quite gay. That is simply weird. However that is more often called fetish than BDSM these days.

      What I meant as a good thing is the more… classical kind. Whip, paddle, rope, chain. Nothing more.

      Strange that these two exist side by side and it is hard to tell them apart just by search expressions. What I definitely can say that I the kind I consider good is older. It has roots in the 19th century and is well summarized by this image from 1936:

      You will notice that it does not have that weird freakishness associated with the gimp and scat and medical torture crowd. It does, in a way, seem natural.

      • jim says:

        I totally enjoy spanking a woman also. But what women enjoy is not the spanking, it is that you can spank her despite her objections.

        It is almost the same thing as BDSM – but the stuff you are allowed to do on video and in books is subtly different from the stuff that actually goes down between men and women.

        In the straight version of a spanking, she is administering a fitness test, often a rather stiff one, and he is passing it.

        Compare 1950s depictions of men spanking women, with modern depictions. Men spanked girls in the fifties, and men spank them today, but the depictions in the fifties and early sixties were straight, while the depictions today are gay.

        In McLintock! Kathy gives McLintock the shit test from hell, and he passes with flying colors.

        In Shades of Gray, she does not give him a shit test, and when she finally does give him a shit test, he fails.

        McLintock enjoys spanking Kathy, and enjoys passing her shit test, but does not enjoy the shit test. Kathy enjoys giving him the shit test from hell, and enjoys him passing the shit test, but does not enjoy the spanking.

        “McLintock!” is straight, “Shades of Gray” is gay.

        McLintock conquers, and Kathy surrenders, but Kathy chooses by giving him opportunity to conquer, and by provoking him until he conquers despite her fierce resistance.

        • Women do enjoy the pain though. You can slap a woman hard enough on the ass to leave a hand-shaped mark when you’re inside her and feel her instantly get tighter and wetter on your cock. Pulling hair and choking have the same effect, ropes and whips are just exaggerating this slightly.

          Cock-in-pussy sex is painful, and that’s precisely why women enjoy it. I’ve known a couple of sexually dysfunctional women, and the dysfunction is always that they’re not masochists. They like men, they want to get fucked, they feel sexual pleasure and get sopping wet, but despite their desire to get fucked, the pain of cock-in-pussy doesn’t get them off.

          • jim says:

            Yes, they do tighten up when you slap them, but they dry up when you keep slapping them, only to re-lubricate when you stop. Wet after spanking, not during.

        • The Cominator says:

          Thought I responded to this…

          “I totally enjoy spanking a woman also. But what women enjoy is not the spanking, it is that you can spank her despite her objections.”

          I’ve known some to very explicitly ask to be spanked or choked (at least the 1st time) so some of them enjoy it within itself as they weren’t objecting.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      Don’t worry — go ahead and imagine doing whatever comes to mind to her (needles, force-lightning, robotic mosquitoes) — it’s all just symbolic foreplay. After you’ve fucked her the images will probably be out of your head for several hours and you can go take a walk in the park with her and say, “Yeah, that’s really pretty!” when she points out some bush or other that appeals to her.

    • The Cominator says:

      “I totally enjoy spanking a woman also. But what women enjoy is not the spanking, it is that you can spank her despite her objections.”

      I’ve known women who were otherwise… not into spanking or choking personally but have been asked to do it.

    • jim says:

      > Nobody suspected that Reage, a very modest looking woman, dreamed about being tied up and whipped by men. Many women do.

      Sort of. Not quite. She dreams of being under the control of a man, owned by a man, property of a man, who can tie her up and whip her, despite her objections. If no objections, no fun.

      She dreams of a man who decisively passes her shit tests.

  22. S.J., Esquire says:

    ***when we are in power, they will no longer exist, and people will not quite remember that they ever existed

    Exactly so, showing the usual Jimian insight into how social change, and mass psychology, actually work in practice. I have observed a too-common tendency to “blackpill” over the homo question, by people despairing about how the recent changes will ever get rolled back, these commenters not realizing that social change does not go backwards via precisely the same route (only in reverse) of the way it got here.

    With respect to the homo question, no, we won’t gradually roll back all of their gains in a step-wise fashion. Rather, we will make homosexuality shameful again*, and then someday a new generation of kids will come around that says, “Haha, you mean 70 years ago there were laws saying homos could ‘marry’ each other, watttt???”, in the same way as we chortle about 19th-century laws saying you couldn’t ride your horse after midnight or whatever.

    * By the way, best way to get homosexuality back in the closet, other than actual legislation, is to associate it with pedophilia in the public consciousness, thus everyone should begin using the LGBTP acronym wherever possible.

    • Aaron says:

      My question is if, as according to data, homosexuals commit 1/3 of all acts of pedophilia and other sex offenses against children [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        Please get white listed.

        The data is obviously corrupt, for the same reasons as the data on racial hate crimes. If a Brown kills a random white while yelling “death to whites”, not a hate crime, but if someone makes a rope loop as a handle to open a garage door that looks vaguely like a noose, hate crime.

        Just look at famous cases.

        Almost every case of heterosexual “Pedophilia” involves an adult male having sex with a “child” past puberty – a “child” with boobs, except for the drunk and asleep cases. Or the male not heterosexual at all, but is a gay having sex with a female child who has not yet developed breasts, or, as in the schools, with a female child whom he has induced to have her breasts surgically removed.

        Gays prefer children of either sex with no boobs. Straights prefer boobies. If Boobies, not a child and not pedophilia.

        If a seventeen year old girl sends a naughty selfie to a nineteen year old man: Pedophilia.

        If a nine year old girl creeps into bed with a forty year old man while he is drunk and asleep, and gives him a happy awakening, followed by a big surprise: He is guilty of pedophilia, and she is pure as the driven snow.

        If a seventeen year old football star considerably bigger than his twenty five year old teacher is invited by his teacher to her apartment for a “study” session, and the “study” moves to the bedroom and fooling around, and to her total lack of surprise he picks her up and tosses her on the bed and bangs her like a drum, she is guilty of pedophilia.

        But if a gay couple is awarded nine year old boys by child protective services, and pass them around at a gay orgy, not pedophilia.

        If a drag queen performs sexual acts in public with a nine year old boy on the floor of Multnomah library during Drag Queen Story hour, not pedophilia. She wass just playing with him

        You have more room to breath now that drag queens can perform sexual acts on the floor of Multnomah library. I have less room to breath now Andromeda and Perseus can non longer get it on in pages on the shelves.

        Repeating: almost every case of heterosexual “Pedophilia” involves an adult male having sex with a “child” past puberty – a “child” with boobs, except for the drunk and asleep cases. Or the male is a gay having sex with a female child who has not yet developed breasts, or as in the schools, with a female child whom he has induced to have her breasts surgically removed.

        • Mayflower Sperg says:

          If a gay couple catches monkeypox, and their adopted six-year-old son and male dog get monkeypox sores around their anuses … nothing to see here folks, move along!

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          If a seventeen year old football star considerably bigger than his twenty five year old teacher […] she is guilty of pedophilia.

          US courts historically have a hard time being consistent on that. Lots of unprincipled exceptions and cries of double standards.

          • jim says:

            Female privilege. It is hard to convict a woman for shoplifting or assault, and it is very difficult to enforce a contract against a women.

            It seems to me just as silly to enforce these laws against an older man having sex with a hot chick as it is to enforce it against a woman who has sex with a younger lad capable of picking her up, tossing her onto the bed, and banging her like a drum.

            And observing other people’s reactions when I was dating a much younger chick, not seeing any reaction, except one old childless women. No one really believes in these laws in their heart, not in real life, not in people they actually meet. Observing real life behavior, everyone in their heart believes as I do.

            The “pedophilia” laws exist for the same reason as the hate speech laws. To whitewash gays, as the hate speech laws exist to white wash black crime and Jewish hostility. In real life, no one cares if a male of any age is dating a chick with boobs.

            • The Cominator says:

              As parodied on South Park before South Park got pozzed

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                On the other hand, I see real world examples like Macron and think, WTF is wrong with him? He could’ve had just about any woman and he went for an used old hag 24 years his senior.

                • Fidelis says:

                  He’s a homo. Plenty of pictures of him with the afrikans where it is damn clear.

                • Adam says:

                  Men settle where there is peace. Jason Momoa and Brock Lesnar both have wives 10+ years older than them. They look like superheroes, and are rich and famous. The only thing that explains it is those women are much easier to deal with than a young hot chick.

                • alf says:

                  Could be, but generally once or twice divorced women with kids come with plenty of baggage. I read that Momoa and his wife already separated.

                  Another reason might be that the man goes for a woman with connections in the industry he wants to break into. Yet another reason might be that it was not the man who seduced the woman, but the other way around.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Another reason might be that the man goes for a woman with connections in the industry he wants to break into” this.

                “Yet another reason might be that it was not the man who seduced the woman, but the other way around.” Why marry her cuz of that? Back when Momoa was Khal Drago he was as desirable as Elvis at the height of his popularity to women… your 1st explanation was right it was a career thing.

                • alf says:

                  Wouldn’t be the first time an older lady swoops in and catches herself a nice boytoy. Not saying that’s what happened in Momoa’s particular situation. But it’s known to happen.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              >Female privilege…

              Well, maybe. I think it’s rather obvious to judges and juries that convicting 25F for being with 17M is a sham. There simply isn’t much government propaganda pushing that idea. Not like when the roles are reversed. Female privilege has quickly been supplanted by trans privilege though. Judges and juries are completely happy to put “trans” men into their bathrooms and locker rooms, and then prosecute them for “hate” when they protest.

              Convicting 25F for being with <12M becomes a lot easier but I've noticed it's more to do with WTF factor than "pedophilia", but there's no word other than "pedophilia" for 'WTF is wrong with her'.

              • The Cominator says:

                Men are very very angry at female privilege at this point and the Cathedral has decided to show some arbritrary even handedness by making some examples of a few Mrs Robinsons.

                Strangely these are generally pretty attractive married women the solution ought to be them getting a good beating (NOT fatal if it were up to me anyway but black eyes and maybe a broken arm) from their husbands whether its a football star type or a wtf case where a woman fucks a 12 year old boy (and in the latter case maybe a trip to a headshrinker post beating) but putting them in jail is just a pathetic attempt to show the system is fair.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  Not denying there’s female privilege at work. I just don’t think it’s the main explanation. Courts will also have a hard time convicting 18M being with 17F, and I assume most cases never make it to court because it’s politely ignored. In most cases people understand the majority of these cases are shams, but as I’ll point out again, propaganda skews on direction massively (because protecting gays).

                  Generally it’s not very, very angry men that are swinging courts to even handedness in making some examples. It’s typically other women. Especially moms in cases of old female teacher touching very young boys.

                  >generally pretty attractive married women
                  >putting them in jail is just a pathetic attempt

                  Agreed, but the typical woman brain is to go after higher status men. Something seriously broke when going after young boys. Occasionally I see in news of 8 year old boy with female teacher. I’m pretty sure that’s straight to headshrink time.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not saying its the men convicting these women in most cases but I’m saying the pressure to do so came from up top in a pathetic and ludicrous effort to make things look fairer in some way. Its not really organic it comes from a high level.

                  As far as the weirder cases women generally go after high status men but female sexuality is a bit more chaotic plastic and unpredictable than male sexuality. Them fucking the physically attractive high status guys is in line with normal female sexuality (with the roadblock of them being teachers making them a nominal authority figure over them but not an insurmountable block) but the ones who go after the really recently post puberty kids… they have a couple wires crossed wrong for some reason. Not something that makes them dangerous to society though if they are married its likely to cause some embarassment to their husbands… they need a beating and perhaps a headshrinker (and yeah I know we don’t have a terribly high view of headshrinkers here) not jail or anything worse though.

Leave a Reply