You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2013.

(the original sequence of this post was a bit jumbled, so I rearranged it on 1 Sept. 2013. Slightly touched up a paragraph on 13/9/2013. This post contains some additional thoughts to my page answering the question of why so many have normalized homosexuality so quickly.)
This article here:

A Response to Joseph Bottum by Mattias A. Caro

says something that I think is very important (among many others). In a response to Joseph Bottum’s pitiful promotion of homosexual marriage as a good thing for a Catholic to adopt, Mattias say:

“Catholics have largely abandoned these issue (marriage, divorce, porn, etc.) in the public square and have thus left these debates for the pews, if they ever occur at all. And sadly, Catholics show little difference from their secular brethren on these issues. ”

I have given a lot of thought to the question of why have so many people normalized homosexuality so quickly and so fiercely in the US, and recently I came across another observation that was right on target, that I hadn’t thought about. Josh Bishop/ He wrote:

“I think @Benjamin Marsh is dead-on when he points to how our porn-saturated culture is impacting our views on gay marriage and, more broadly, on homosexuality. I think the gay marriage debate is benefiting from the nature and availability of today’s pornography — so different, as we’re often told, from previous generations’ “Playboy in dad’s dresser drawer” experience of pornography…. I absolutely agree that porn culture has made gay sex more palatable/tolerable than it would have been a generation ago.”

The question of the liberalization of America

America has become and continues to become increasingly liberalized (regarding social mores). Therefore conflating the spheres of capitalism/foreign policy with issues of the “culture wars” (family, relationships, sex/sexuality) creates confusion. Not that they aren’t entangled on many levels and deeply influence each other. But it’s plain to see that religious people, especially Christians/Catholics/Jews in the US are becoming enormously liberal, which also includes a good deal of Republicans. The Right is becoming more and more left (as in liberal). In a way, for many, it’s just a mask that’s coming off. Many Republicans and WASPS were never socially conservative in their hearts or personal lives, they just went along with putting on a conservative performance, because social constraints required it (adultery, porn, prostitution, homosexuality, etc).

Many countries with a past communist/socialist system continue to uphold good traditional values, while the US is destroying the remains of its socially conservative society with a fierceness that one could never have foreseen a few decades ago. I think liberalism is very capitalist (as in savage capitalism/profit above morality/ and extreme egoism/narcissism) and very destructive, because it attacks the most fundamental structures of society: the personal realm, what holds society together. I find it very ironic that, post-cold war, while the US drives itself into the ditch, Putin stands firm to defend his society from this homosexuality agenda crap.

There are some old guard conservatives that informally label liberals as “Marxists/commies,” even when they are talking about culture wars families/relationships issues. Now that becomes untenable in today’s world. “Liberal,” definitely yes, “left-winger,” loosely, but in the US the majority of Americans who support and promote homosexuality, porn, and sex outside marriage are not even remotely Marxist – they are staunch, obnoxious capitalists, usually younger (but also their parents), snotty materialistic types, who will support uncritically a deranged and out-of-control military-industrial complex, if that means they can get their hands on the latest iPhone or sexually harass boys in the BSA with impunity in the name of equality and inclusion. These are the younger emblem of capitalism today.

See also:

My CENSORED post at Torah Musings: “Can Conservative Religion Survive Gay Marriage? My response.”


I wrote a first version of this commentary as a reply in another thread at the First Street Journal.

I’ve just discovered this very nice site: Ethika Politika. And came across this excellent article by Mattias Caro: Why does everyone defend pornography?

Most people don’t have any problem with pornography. … And it’s not just easy to get, but most people accept pornography as something as American as apple pie. Of course, you don’t usually serve a helping of Playmate after Thanksgiving Dinner, but most Americans accept pornography uncritically as a necessary part of the American way of life, even if they are personally opposed to it.

This is a very interesting question. Although Mattias courageously launches the argument for partial or full censorship of pornography, that’s not the point I wanted to address. I wanted to focus on the question of normalization and acceptation. And to also note, that the more porn became extreme, including extremely violent, extremely degrading, and spreading into every type of perversion imaginable (animals, excrement, torture, etc.), the more accepted it became in American society. This move to legitimize porn and the eagerness to see it as acceptable by millions of individuals all happened starting with the Sexual Revolution of the 60s, thus a very short period of time. The question Mattias asked, however, has been largely glossed over and ignored, as important as it is. There is a tremendous squeamishness all around to tackle it head on (a refutation of the legitimacy of porn).

So here is a very quick take on the answer to the question Mattias raises.

Why does everyone defend pornography?

Because a large number of people are dysfunctional and warped regarding sexuality. As religion went into the ditch in the 20th century in terms of authority and the moral voice in society, the vacuum was taken up by the ideology of privileged, and largely parasitic, men regarding sexuality.

Many men are socially conditioned to be exploitative and perverted regarding sex, even if they target women outside their families for the worse of the exploitation (and violence). The women’s movement liberated women from the yoke of very patriarchal constraints of oppression, and joined hands with the sexual revolution in the 60′s/70′s. As a result, a new ideology was taught to many women, to become increasingly like men in order to wield power in society and in private spheres. Therefore, women who were previously brought up to be non sexually perverted mothers and wives, became more and more of sluts and adopted many of the parasitic attitudes and behaviors from perverted men, including consumption and normalization of porn, commitment-less sex, along with bisexuality and homosexuality.

Social conservatives who took a stand were in the minority; feminists who criticized porn for exploiting women were mostly ignored. All in all, you have a multiplicity of lies operating in terms of the attitudes to support porn. According to dominant liberal ideology, as long as there is consent, there can be no harm (that anyone cares to acknowledge).

Americans have now embarked on a warpath to declare themselves in every way normal regarding sexuality, no matter how deformed, perverted, or dysfunctional they are. People who are perverted in terms of sexuality don’t want to admit it and much less do they think about resolving their problems.

In short, people defend porn because it’s just like when we had slavery and it was fully justified as moral. The slave-owner parasites had power, they silenced the little dissent there was. Slavery was legitimized every which way. It can’t get more horrid than to have a society that defends pornography in the name of nothing other than freedom. Slavery was defended in the name of civilization, genocide in the name of progress, there is no surprise that people have come to endorse porn under the guise of freedom. The George Orwell kind.

Not that such systems cannot be changed.

One reason why it is always nice to see articles like Mattias’ and the courage he shows in addressing the issue. And also because he is a man, and talks to other men, man-to-man. There is such a terrible dearth of more stalwart men like him in society.

So I discovered a very nice blog today and was reading this thread on Bradley Manning, his gender identity disorder, and how ignorant and deranged liberals normalize it and promote it. Another quintessential example of the liberal lunacy of “identity, therefore real.” Coincidently, the very same lunatic belief espoused by this French psychotherapist here (“French Psychologist (Joe Kort) explores varied reasons why men have sex with men, while refusing to admit they are homosexual or bisexual”). You can read the Manning thread at THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL for all the comments (which are very important).

In one of them, there is this precious pearl that clinches this pathetic and unnerving dynamics by liberals, which was made in reference to this whole “identity, therefore real” issue. There is no end to the religious deference shown to people making crazy “identity” claims about things which they are not, such as a man claiming to be a woman because he would like to be one. So “Eric” pointedly replies:

Eric: …actually it is us laughing at you and your ilk’s hypersensitivity and treating with great solemnity matters that are inherently ridiculous


Thank you for putting it into words. There are many things which are profoundly enervating that liberals do, because they strain sanity so entirely to the point there’s none left, yet they do their utmost to claim the most irrational, absurd distortions of reality are sane, and should be treated with the greatest deferential attitude. And they truly form a religious cult-like deference to these rabidly demented ideas.

When I criticized the normalization of homosexuality in a blog I stumbled upon recently, (which I didn’t know was run by a liberal cad), after he spewed a long list of petty insults (in the name of civility, of course!), he grandly pronounced why he was censoring my views and questionings of his agenda:

“There is a difference between actual dissent and the marketplace of ideas determining that certain viewpoints are so obnoxious that they should likely be kept to one’s self.”

Thus, “actual dissent” is dissent that doesn’t dissent from his homosexuality agenda!

Notice how the “market place of ideas” in his phrase has been reduced to him, an ignorant and stupid liberal, who thinks any criticism that reveals his stupidity on any subject is “too obnoxious” and must be censored.

The market place of ideas must be shut down, because too obnoxious.

As Carlo, one of my favorite TAC commenters, recently clarified:

What today is called “liberalism” is anything but liberal in the classical sense. It is more of a form of soft totalitarianism, in which alternative moral visions are persecuted as “discriminatory” and “the idea of politics is subsumed within the idea of war, even in peacetime.”

There’s also something else to note here that has become quite standard with stupid liberals. Anyone and everyone that shows how stupid the normalization of homosexuality is must be equated to and propped up as the ultimate liberal bogey man, the “Westboro Church” folks. It doesn’t matter if you’re not at all talking about anything even remotely related to religion, for a liberal, objections to their stupidity regarding the normalization of homosexuality calls for an immediate and rabid stereotyping of the critic as some deranged and hateful “Westboro Church” member, accompanied by their indignant cries that anything you do can only be motivated by ANIMUS, ANIMUS, ANIMUS against the little gays! They scream animus so it must be animus. They seethe with rage at your criticisms so it must be animus, they vomit insults trying to to degrade you, so it must be animus – on your part. Animus! That magical little word that liberal cads live for.

Ignorant bigotry at its best. As it’s plain to see, as long as the fake animus accusation achieves its main goal of both debate and ideological shutdown, all is well for the stupid liberal, after all.

Lastly, as I noted in my Censored blog (link below):

Ironically… there are many more, I mean literally millions more liberals who sexually harass, molest, abuse, spread STDs, and degrade children and adults in society, and who think homosexuality is normal, than the handful of Westboro folks. Reality is that the Westboro folks are a bit strident, true, but they are certainly not the destructive, violent pigs that so many liberals who normalize homosexuality are.

Who is making society a violent sexuality pigsty? It’s certainly much more people who think like Dave and normalize homosexuality than the Westboro folks.


If you want to read the exchange with this liberal cad called Dave at “Ordinary,” it’s here:

As Robert Stacy McCain perfectly pinned it down:

“Facts and logic that contradict their arguments are dismissed as somehow tainted because they don’t come from reliable (i.e., leftist) sources, whereas any specimen of counter-factual lunacy is acceptable to them, so long as it supports their anti-social (and sexually perverted*) worldview. There is therefore no point in trying to reason with such fools.”

*in italics: my words

DNW said: It’s always a crack-up to hear these clowns trembling in righteous indignation over some supposedly dehumanizing slight one of their kind has received; when, they have themselves ideologically reduced humankind to the status of bags of appetite, and happily done so.


Some nice comments regarding how liberals insist that transsexuals are not dysfunctional and crazy (not including those with biologically ambiguous genitalia):

Thursday, 29 August 2013 at 12:25 Great comment from Hoagie below in response to the lame liberal moaning that no one can contradict sexually deranged transsexuals because it’s “dehumanizing” not to go along with their derangement. Liberal clown chides:”How very dehumanizing of you. Manning isn’t a person to you; she’s a thing.”

Hoagie replies:

Only in the mind of a demented leftist could calling a man male a male be “dehumanizing”. I assume then that referring to Manning as “she” and supporting his demented psychosis, perversion and false self perception is somehow “humanizing” him? How is it humanizing to encourage an obviously sick and troubled person to self mutilate with castration, emasculation and slapping a pair of plastic boobs on himself?

I also liked this:

ropelight says: Thursday, 29 August 2013 at 12:33

Hoagie, you keep referring to Bradley Manning as if he was still a member of the masculine gender, and you know full well that since he’s decided to self-identify as something he’s obviously not, he can’t be a real man, if he ever was one, nor is he a woman.

New post on my other blog Censored:

A Polite Society According to a Liberal Cad – Censored at (read ordinary-cads)
Posted on August 27, 2013

I stumbled across this blog called “Ordinary Gentlemen,” which is curiously populated by its very opposite. At least one of the blog owners, a certain Dave, is a major cad. As such, he uses the blog to display how warped his views are regarding sexuality, and, if anyone questions his twisted mindset, then he gets nasty and vomits insults and incivility. In the name of a “polite” society, of course! Because for a cad, a violent sexuality pigsty is a polite society. Raging like a demented queen, he alternated between threatening to censor my comments and spewing his retarded insults. Not only that, when he first threatened to censor me, I pointed out he was acting no differently than a little ayatolah, you know the repressive, petty, ignorant kind, who hates debate and dissent. “But, but, acting like a cad and a retarded ayatolah is how people act in my brand of polite society!” Well, so much for liberal sexuality pigs and their polite society of cads.

(continues at Censored…)

Among some very nice recent cultural discoveries are two stand-up comedians: Trevor Noah and Sebastian Maniscalco. You will note that neither of them have a filthy mouth, and neither espouse attitudes of a cad regarding women, and neither seem to promote degrading and exploitative attitudes about sex (porn, prostitution, etc.), at least, that I’ve seen.

See Trevor on Letterman (although the joke on the homeless mentally ill is gross). And he wears an elegant suit, thank you, not like those cheap comedians in their stupid, crappy t-shirts, jeans, and tennis shoes.

See Sebastian, here, and here

Trevor in particular is cute and has class — class which is so lacking on TV nowadays. I relate a lot to Sebastian’s social behavior rules underlying many of his jokes: he hates tattoos (Yes! Thank you!), and what a lovely ending to his tattoo joke, the Ferrari bit; another example is a skit about company coming over…

They both do ethnicity/multi-cultural jokes, and Trevor is much more international, but none of them are crude or have that sexist pig ‘hood mentality that Russel Peters and so many other black stand-up comedians display, who treat women the same way Jim Crow folks treated blacks. Russel Peters is obviously very good at hitting back at racism/immigration/ethnic prejudices, but he is quite crappy when it comes to women, sex, and relationships. Not the worse, though — and as if that excused any of it.

One of Peters’ classic ethnicity jokes

One of my very favorite pro-black/anti-racism stand-up routines: Steve Harvey

And since I’m listing best stand-ups, among the best is the great Cedric the Entertainer on gay marriage and gay animals. Gold!

Thanks to the often shoddy and very pro-homosexuality agenda First Things blog, I came to know of this pastor, a great writer, and his article, because he was mentioned negatively (surprise!) in FT recently:

Thabiti Anyabwile: The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage”

Unfortunately comments are closed! But there is a lot in the article and in the comments. Here is his description of what happened in a policy meeting (see his article for full text):

…We covered the very solid and long-standing research consensus on family structure. “Everyone does well or at least better when children are raised in married two-parent households.” Then the “thinking” in the tank turned political and strategic. The question of “gay marriage” surfaced. The room grew tense. Not because participants argued or tempers flared, but because everyone wanted to remain polite. People had opinions, but with the exception of one known conservative, most didn’t know where the others stood. Folks assummed, because I’m African American, that I would be supportive of a basically liberal viewpoint. Horror and surprise flashed over some faces when I made it clear that homosexual behavior was in no way comparable to the Civil Rights struggle, an analogy that was beginning to gain currency at the time.

Then it happened. The wind changed directions. If the wind could take steps, here they were:

Seize upon politeness.
Turns out that being civil about indecency actually hurts the traditional cause. One of the attendees, a well-known openly-gay journalist, began to distance himself from other prominent gay activists. He rejected their militancy. He faulted their arguments as too frontal, too caustic, too beside the point. He “championed” traditional marriage and wanted it for gay couples for all the same beneficial reasons. He spoke of the research on family structure in friendly ways. He took the polite high ground and all the polite folks in the room were left with nothing but nodding.

Minimize conjugality. With most of the room nodding, he then began to divorce (no pun intended) marriage from its conjugal nature. All of a sudden, marriage was not about sex and procreation. “After all,” we were told, “there are heterosexual married couples who either cannot have or opt not to have children. So sex and procreation cannot be essential to marriage.”

Remove the “yuck factor.” Our advocate friend was keenly aware that any conversation about “what goes on in bedrooms” was death to his cause. So, he privatized those realities and their implications for what we view as “normal” or “acceptable,” and focused on other things (rights, etc.). He pointed out that most people have a visceral reaction, a gag reflex, when they think about sex between two men or two women. That deep-in-the-stomach gagging was symptomatic of an even deeper moral opposition to sodomy and other homosexual practices. He told us that this gag reflex should not and could not be allowed to affect the debate. The discussion needed to shift to other aspects of relationships. One of the great Houdini achievements of the gay rights campaign has been to take an issue all about sexual behavior and turn it into a discussion about everything but sexual behavior.

Emphasize love and commitment. Then the winds picked up. If marriage wasn’t about the conjugal relationship, what was it about? “Love and commitment” we were told. “What’s wrong with two people finding love?” Of course, this is a particularly manipulative question. The debate was never about “love.” And who can argue against “love”? But that’s the turn the discussion took in that room and would soon take in the broader public conversations. Gay marriage would be a celebration and affirmation of love and commitment, “the highest ideals in marriage” now that conjugal relationships were unimportant.

Call for “rights” and “equality.”
If marriage was merely about love, and such love ought to be protected via government-recognized rights, then “gay marriage” should receive those same protections and rights.

What I’ve just described took place in about ten minutes, replete with objections answered and raised. Our homosexual interlocutor proved himself kind, winsome, insightful and reasonable. Most everyone, myself included, listened with a sense of appreciation.

Here’s what I tried to do, followed by what I did wrong:

Reject the unbiblical definition of love. I said, though it was very unpopular, homosexual marriage could not properly be called “love.” You could choke on the room’s tension. “How could I say such a thing?” I pointed out that the Bible teaches plainly that “love does not rejoice in wrongdoing” (1 Cor. 13). That the Bible also teaches that homosexual behavior was wrongdoing or sin. Consequently, though strong emotions and affections are involved, we cannot properly call it “love.” Love does no harm, and homosexuality clearly harms everyone involved. Despite the stares, I continued.

Reject the “rights” argument.
It seems this ship has sailed. But a decade ago it was still in port, scraping off before the maiden voyage into public opinion. It was at this point in the conversation that I realized two things: (1) I’d been invited in part to address this particular aspect of the issue, and (2) most of the room gave me a fair amount of moral authority on the question. So I spoke as forcefully as I could about the wide difference between the sexual behavior we were now discussing and immutable skin color given by God. “Gay” was not the new “Black.”

But I wasn’t heard. Or, rather, I was heard as a paranoid alarmist. So-called “gay marriage” would not ruin marriage. Heterosexuals had already done that. Why shouldn’t homosexuals have their opportunity to ruin it, too?

Here’s what I failed to do then and I’m convinced is necessary now:

Return the discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth. Now to do this, we’re simply going to have accept the fact that we aren’t going to be liked. We’re going to be branded “mean” and “bigoted.” We should not in fact be mean and bigoted. We should speak the truth in love. But the consequence will be a nasty brand from the culture. I should say branded again because we’ve already been given those labels simply for being Christians. So, we don’t have much to lose and we just might re-gain some footing in this debate.

What do I mean by returning the yuck factor?

Consider how many times you’ve read the word “gay” or “homosexual” in this post without thinking about the actual behaviors those terms represent. “Gay” and “homosexual” are polite terms for an ugly practice. They are euphemisms. In all the politeness, we’ve actually stopped talking about the things that lie at the heart of the issue–sexual promiscuity of an abominable sort. I say “abominable” because that’s how God describes it in His word. I think we should describe sin (and righteousness) the way God does. And I think it would be a good thing if more people were gagging on the reality of the sexual behavior that is now becoming public law, protected, and even promoted in public schools.
I don’t know if the tide will wash out on so-called “gay marriage.” But if it does I suspect it’ll happen because our moral conscience is aroused by sober consideration of the behavior we’re now viewing on prime time television, celebrating on court house steps, and teaching in public schools. Time for us to wake up and shift the discussion back to what this has been about all along. The good news is our conscience will side with what we already know to be right–even the conscience of those who oppose the truth will testify against them.

[end of excerpts from Anyabwile’s article]


I loved his writing style and content. No wonder the gay mafia at FT was upset and peeved.

But, also, to note, another great discovery, in the comments to the Anyabwile article: Josh Bishop/ He wrote:

I think @Benjamin Marsh is dead-on when he points to how our porn-saturated culture is impacting our views on gay marriage and, more broadly, on homosexuality. I think the gay marriage debate is benefiting from the nature and availability of today’s pornography — so different, as we’re often told, from previous generations’ “Playboy in dad’s dresser drawer” experience of pornography. It’s much easier to accept anal sex between two men when one watches graphic anal sex between a man and a woman. Or, at the very least, not acceptance but a guilty “Well, an anus is an anus, and I sort of like it, too. Is it really all that different?” I remember reading somewhere that doctors are seeing an uptick in damaging physical effects in women of anal sex — driven by the expectations of their male sex partners who view healthy sexual behavior through the lens of their online porn habits. And oral sex was once considered *more* intimate than vaginal intercourse, and a rarity (or at least not much discussed) even within the marriage bed. Today, it’s a less dangerous, less consequential, less intimate way to get one’s jollies without actually having sex. All that to say, I absolutely agree that porn culture has made gay sex more palatable/tolerable than it would have been a generation ago.

Add to that one more thing: Thabiti is right to point out the wrongness of “one man inserting the part of his body intended to create life into the part of another man’s body meant to excrete waste” but his argument hinges on that one word, *intended*. This assumes a teleology of the human body and sexuality that the broader culture simply doesn’t acknowledge. If they have one, it’s *pleasure* — and if one finds pleasure by putting one’s sex organs in any number of holes, then who are we to judge? How do we speak of intentions or correct use or good without a shared telos?


So beautifully well thought out and said.

So, I had discovered some visual maps based on stereotypes that Yanko had done, and blogged about them.

Next thing I know, Tsvetkov comes here to my blog to announce he has a major homosexuality problem and that I appear to be too preoccupied with his sexuality – apparently he considers himself proprietary of homosexuality as an entity, therefore having some kind of exclusive right to thinking about it. He then tells me I should be just as stupid as he is about homosexuality: don’t think, don’t reflect, but most of all, certainly don’t criticize anything related to sexuality or homosexuality; these are taboo topics, and no one should think about anything. Thinking is clearly a no-no for liberals.

Everyone should be just as ignorant and stupid as little Tsvetkov is. The reasons why I write and discuss issues of sexuality are plainly stated here, but he prefers to ignore them because he is much too interested in a certain little strawman claim he wants to build so that he can destroy it and feel he has accomplished something in debating me.

So he then launches into a little strawman tirade, claiming that I believe that homosexuals are “inherently promiscuous” and that I imagine homosexual relationships as “nothing but sexual endeavors.” The fact that I don’t think these things is obviously irrelevant to the not so clever Tsvetkov.

He then states he has a farcical “marriage” with another dysfunctional man with a major homosexual problem – as if with that one he scored a major point against his projected strawman! And he finishes his idiotic attempt to berate me by telling me to “grow up.”

Apparently little Tsvetkov has not yet realized that growing up means thinking about sexuality issues — and especially the issues he is too irresponsible, perverted, and down right stupid to address.

Below is stupidity itself:

As a “homosexual”, I would like to point out that you seem quite preoccupied with my own sexuality. It would be interesting to try to find out why this is. I, for one, am not at all interested in yours. The idea that I, as a homosexual, am also inherently promiscuous is ridiculously infantile. Imagining homosexual relationships as nothing but sexual endeavors is retarded. I didn’t marry my husband because I wanted to have sex with him. Grow up!

Hi, I wanted to note this article (Pourquoi certains hommes hétérosexuels sont attirés par d’autres hommes, sexuellement ou sentimentalement – Why certain heterosexual men are attracted to other men, sexually or emotionally) and therapist (Joe Kort – he’s French). Even though we have diametrically opposite ideologies concerning sexuality and especially bi/homosexuality, he has investigated and continues to investigate and explore reasons why men have sex with men. In 2008, he launched a blog, called Straight Guise, to discuss the subject of men having sex with men.

If you don’t read French, here are some reasons he highlights: Repercussions of child sexual abuse; prostitution or “escorting;” search for exciting but personally degrading experiences (using a dildo, “bondage”, etc.); first sexual experience; opportunity/availability; transference of anger/neediness regarding father; physical attraction to men, but emotional attraction/love for women; narcissism; sexual addiction; adultery; exhibitionism; and sexual release in prison.

En 2008, j’ai lancé Straight Guise, un site et un blog ouvert à toute personne désireuse de lire, poster des commentaires ou discuter sur le sujet des relations entre hommes. On y explore les nombreuses raisons qui font qu’un homme a des relations sexuelles avec un homme. Seules quelques unes d’entre elles ont à voir avec l’homosexualité ou la bisexualité.

Bon nombre d ‘hommes ont des relations avec d’autres hommes pour de multiples raisons, que je vais tâcher d’analyser pour vous. En voici quelques unes :

Répercussion d’une agression sexuelle lors de la petite enfance (ou “acting-out”) : on appelle aussi ce phénomène “l’empreinte homosexuelle”. Il concerne des hommes hétérosexuels, qui n’ont pas d’orientation homosexuelle. Ils ne désirent pas sexuellement, ou ne sont pas excités, par d’autres hommes. Cependant, ils reproduisent compulsivement l’agression sexuelle qu’un homme leur a fait subir dans leur enfance au travers de leur comportement avec d’autres hommes. Si un garçon hétérosexuel est agressé par un homme de son entourage, il se peut qu’il “retourne sur la scène du crime” afin de désamorcer sa douleur émotionnelle ou s’en désensibiliser. Quand le traumatisme de départ est effacé, le comportement “homosexuel” cesse. Il ne s’agit pas d’homosexualité, mais d’agression sexuelle.
Prostitution ou “escorting”: des hommes hétérosexuels ont des relations avec d’autres hommes pour la récompense financière, mais ils n’ont aucun désir pour les hommes et sont attirés par l’acte en lui-même, pas par l’homme. Il est n’est pas rare, dans l’industrie du porno ou du sexe en général, que des hommes hétéros ayant des relations sexuelles avec des hommes soient mieux payés que s’ils le faisaient avec une femme.
Recherche d’expériences excitantes mais personnellement dégradantes (utilisation d’un godemichet, “bondage”, etc.) : certains hommes sont fascinés par des pratiques sexuelles que beaucoup considéreraient comme “homosexuelles”. Afin d’éviter d’être catalogués comme tels par des femmes, ils recherchent plutôt des hommes, qu’ils estiment moins catégoriques.
Première expérience sexuelle : parfois des hommes hétérosexuels ont des relations avec d’autres hommes, surtout dans l’adolescence et/ou dans les premières années de l’âge adulte (jusqu’à 25 ans), pour l’expérience ou pour satisfaire leur curiosité.
Disponiblité/opportunité : il s’agit d’hommes ayant de gros besoins sexuels et sont facilement excités. Ils passent à l’acte avec des hommes pour le soulagement sexuel et physique, qui peut être rapide et facile et leur permet d’éviter d’avoir à s’engager sentimentalement.
Colère envers le père : des hommes hétérosexuels qui recherchent l’affection et l’attention de leur père, peuvent avoir des relations sexuelles avec des hommes afin d’obtenir cette “nourriture”, cette acceptation masculine.
Attirance physique pour les hommes, mais attirance émotionnelle/amoureuse pour les femmes : il s’agit d’hommes attirés sentimentalement par les femmes et sont en général en couple avec des femmes. Ils peuvent avoir des relations sexuelles avec les femmes qu’ils aiment, mais sont principalement excités par les hommes.
Narcissisme : certains hommes hétérosexuels sont très égocentriques et ont un besoin constant d’attention et d’acceptation ; ils utilisent la sexualité avec les hommes pour être idolâtrés et adorés.
Addiction sexuelle : un comportement “gay” peut être la résultante d’une dépendance au sexe. Mais même un accro au sexe “guéri” peut encore se sentir attiré par les hommes, à l’instar d’un prêtre gay célibataire.
Adultère : voilà des hommes qui prennent plaisir à fantasmer sur l’idée – ou la réalité – de leur compagne en plein ébat avec d’autres hommes, soit devant eux, à côté ou en ayant conscience de ce qu’il est en train de se passer, où et quand. Ils sont souvent excités sexuellement par l’humiliation qu’ils ressentent en constatant qu’un autre homme, plus puissant et mieux bâti, procure du plaisir à leur compagne. D’autres hommes prennent plaisir à avoir des relations sexuelles avec une femme devant son partenaire, ou du moins en sa connaissance. Parfois ils passent à l’acte avec l’homme, mais seulement en présence de sa compagne.
Exhibitionnisme : des hommes hétérosexuels prennent plaisir à être regardés, que ce soit par des hommes ou par des femmes. L’important est que l’on admire leur corps. Une bonne partie d’entre eux font de l’exercice et présentent une belle musculature et apprécient l’attention érotique que leur portent les hommes gays. Ils en arrivent même à flirter avec des hommes pour les inciter à plus d’admiration.
Soulagement sexuel en prison : c’est le cas d’hommes hétérosexuels ayant des rapports avec d’autres hommes en prison. Seuls les hommes leur procure un soulagement parce que seuls les hommes sont disponibles. Une fois sortis de prison, ces personnes n’ont plus de relation sexuelle avec des hommes.

As he well notes, these reasons or complex set of reasons mentioned are not exhaustive. What is very clear, however, is that they show that when we investigate why people engage in same-sex behavior, the fundamental reasons are of a pscyho-emotional-social nature – there is no biological or genetic determination to engage in any of this behavior. If you solve the underlying dysfunctional psycho-social problems, the need for having a perverted same-sex sexuality disappears.

Where Kort errs is in his definition of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality – all three based on identity. In his view, what an individual thinks of himself determines his sexual category (identity), but reality itself is discarded. This is similar to affirming that if a person thinks they are Napoleon, then they are Napoleon, and reality is irrelevant. Or that if a pedophile does not admit he or she is pedophile, by liberal ideology, then they are not a pedophile! This is the flaw with liberal ideology which posits that identity (thoughts) is determinant of reality (concrete). It’s an insane and completely irrational way of thinking but it has been adopted by many liberals. It’s impossible to become more Orwerlian than to affirm that denial in the mind equals eliminating reality! And this comes from psychologists themselves. Yes, inmates running the psychological/therapy professions.

Voici un scénario très fréquent : un homme entre dans mon cabinet, sur les conseils de son thérapeute et des livres sur le coming out qu’on lui a donnés. Il m’explique que son thérapeute a tenté, sans succès, de lui faire révéler son homosexualité ou sa bisexualité, mais bien qu’il ait eu des relations sexuelles avec d’autres hommes et visité des sites pornos gay, il insiste sur le fait qu’il n’est pas gay. Il dit ne pas être homophobe non plus ; s’il s’avérait en effet qu’il était gay ou bisexuel, il l’accepterait sans problème, mais le fait est que l’étiquette ne lui semble pas appropriée.

Au cours des trois dernières décennies, en réaction aux idées préconçues et aux comportements homophobes, le vent a tellement tourné que la thérapeutique et le politiquement correct veulent qu’un homme qui a des relations sexuelles avec des hommes soit “dans le déni” et ait besoin d’aide pour reconnaître et accepter son “véritable” penchant homosexuel. Le fait est qu’aucun des deux extrêmes ne correspond au ressenti de bon nombre d’hommes. En réalité, beaucoup d’entre eux, qui ont des relations sexuelles avec des hommes, ne sont pas gays ou même bisexuels. Les hommes homosexuels ou bisexuels en viennent à développer une identité gay ou bisexuelle. Ce n’est pas le cas des hommes en question, bien que leur situation psychologique et émotionnelle corresponde aux premières étapes vers le coming out.

Lorsque j’écris sur les hommes hétérosexuels qui ont de l’attirance, voire des relations sexuelles, avec d’autres hommes, je reçois bon nombre de réactions négatives, en particulier de la part d’homosexuels qui ont vécu dans le placard, tâchant de se convaincre de leur hétérosexualité, allant parfois jusqu’à se marier avec des femmes. “Vous ne laissez pas ces hommes sortir du placard, vous leur faites du mal !”, me crient-ils. Mais ce qu’ils ne comprennent pas, c’est que je ne m’adresse pas à des hommes comme eux. Eux rejetaient une identité : une image sexuelle et romantique de l’homosexualité. Ce n’est pas à ce genre d’hommes que je m’adresse.

Another point to note is that Kort has found many reasons already detailed and explored by Nicolosi from NARTH, an organization that liberals hate with a passion because NARTH works to expose the truth of how deformed homosexual psychology and sexuality is.

Just to underscore, here is Kort at his most irrational:

En réalité, beaucoup d’entre eux, qui ont des relations sexuelles avec des hommes, ne sont pas gays ou même bisexuels. Les hommes homosexuels ou bisexuels en viennent à développer une identité gay ou bisexuelle. (In fact, many of these men who have sex with men are not gay or even bisexual. Homosexual or bisexual men come to develop a gay or bisexual identity.)

Of course, this is nonsense. What a person is is separate from their own conscience (or lack of it) or their identity. It’s not because Hitler thinks he’s wonderful (his identity) that he is so (his reality). A person’s identity never determines their reality in this fashion. The formulation of a person’s identity can be more or less correct in respect to how it describes that person’s own reality, but it still is not one and the same; they are two very separate entities.

Therefore, what Kort is really showing is how complex and deformed the minds of all these homosexual and bisexual men are, from a psychological perspective. Not only do they have profound underlying problems generating their perverted attractions to other men, the men he’s referring to in this blog have serious denial problems about being homosexual/bisexual. A denial which Kort only helps to maintain in place, obviously.

In any case, a refreshing read compared to the typical retarded and unethical American psychologist crowd (of liberals) that cannot investigate a single case of homosexuality and continues to promote their blatant ignorance, aside from crushing research efforts on the etiology of homosexuality and its profound underlying problems. With a few exceptions like those researchers investigating the experiences of people who have changed their sexual psychology/orientation (like Lisa M. Diamond –

I think this shows that no matter how much money, virulence, and outright stubborn stupidity liberals spend in order to maintain the lie that homosexuality is genetically determined or inborn, and to deny that it is caused by a complex set of underlying psycho-social problems, they will lose in the end and truth will prevail.

Their ignorant ideology will be unmasked for what it is. Even if most American psychologists and psychiatrists right now can only march in ideological lockstep with their ignorant homosexuality agenda precepts, they can’t stop researchers and psychologists around the world from doing the investigations they refuse to do and for showing that organizations like the APA are mostly a fraud and a disservice to society when it comes to issues of sexuality research, and notably of homosexuality.

London-based designer Yanko Tsvetkov, through his site, has taken the art of mapping to a new level! His work is amazingly insightful and displays such a good knowledge of idiotic nationality stereotypes and cultural biases from so many cultures. And the humor – it is good, I mean, seriously good! This guy shouldn’t be a designer – at least he should write political or cultural cartoons as well as design.

I was laughing out loud all the way.

I mean, just look at some of these oceans: Nazi Submarine Ocean, Ocean of Europe, Noodle Ocean… Seriously, we need to change a name somewhere and really have an “Ocean of Europe” – that’s too good.

And the countries: WTF?, KQDFRCPQSFKZTAN + 2, OFFSHORIA, Evil Federated Empire of Europe, Wasn’t this Russia?, Definitely Not Europeans, Semi-France, Best Friends, Italy/Ethiopia/Somalia, Europoor du Nord/Europoor du Sud, Mars/Jupiter/Mercury, the World (Switzerland); in 2022: Greece (owned by China), Merkelreich…

Very well analyzed and written with such enviable ease. From a thread at The American Conservative on the new Pope: Pope Francis, Class-Consciousness, and Catholic Consistency – by
Daniel McCarthy.

Robert (not Robert C) says:
August 10, 2013 at 12:38 am

Traditionally, Australian Catholicism has had the same social-class issues as American Catholicism, only in concentrated form. This is largely because the American tradition of college education for Catholics simply didn’t exist in Australia until the 1990s (when the disproportionately Catholic nursing profession started insisting on its members having university degrees) and to this day it is weak. Just as it remains impossible to imagine an Australian equivalent of the Kennedy tribe, so it remains impossible to imagine an Australian equivalent of Fulton Sheen, let alone Orestes Brownson.

Moreover, the 1954-1955 split in the Australian Labor Party, over the issue of how – or even whether – to fight against Communists, ensured that antipodean Catholicism, at one stroke, lost almost its entire working-class base. While local blue-collar Catholics didn’t like the Marxisant-Protestant Labor leader H.V. Evatt much, they liked the Action-Française-tinctured Catholic leader B. A. Santamaria still less, although the sheer prestige of Santamaria’s chief backer, the nonagenarian Archbishop Mannix, ensured that the lid was kept upon complaints for the first few post-split years.

From around 1970 Australia’s Catholic “leaders” decided that they could compensate for the hemorrhaging of their working-class support by facilitating an upper-middle-class, and foreign, influx. University education for Catholics (previously much distrusted, though not actively prohibited, by the episcopate) became the Next Big Thing. “If you build it, they will come.” This embourgeoisement basically meant open slather for (a) chip-on-shoulder women who lusted after basket-weaving courses with theological pretensions, (b and far more dangerously) “male” homosexuals with masters’ degrees and Bertie Wooster voices.

Which is where we came in. Blue-collar cultures overwhelmingly regard male homosexual antics with either disgust or, less often, with the cheerful cynicism to be found in certain “rent boys”. Only among members of the middle and ostensibly upper classes has sodomy become an Eighth Sacrament rendering obsolete the other seven.

Australian Catholic officialdom used to be routinely derided – with some justice – as “the ALP at prayer”. It is now, for all practical purposes, the Harvey Milk Fan Club at prayer. Surely not even the most insane optimist would regard this change as an improvement.


What a pity “Robert” above did not sign his full name, thus enabling us to find more of his writings.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: