Sorry, but conservatives lose if they treat homosexuality as a legitimate expression of love.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22866096)

It's a sad disorder, much like alcoholism. They need psychiatric help.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22866100)

gas all libs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#34184033)

It's also possible that they don't want to be women (physically), but they want a woman's role, especially when it come to emotional expression. Men are expected to restrain their emotions, and that's probably hard for homosexuals. They may envy a woman's comparative freedom to sob and throw tantrums.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22866106)

No Freud, but many mothers also know their son's love lives reflect at least in part on them. Even an accepting libtard mother will subtly communicate her disappointment.

Gays also oscillate wildly from mother worship to insane resentment. Idolizing vapid celebrities like Monroe, Cher, or Taylor Swift may let them experience the "high" of this dynamic, without the painful baggage. Again, that's why I pointed out how weird "Candle in the Wind" is. Sir Elton croons about his noble feelings for Marilyn, how he sees more than just a sex symbol. There's a similar Christian tradition of seeing the spirit in the flesh, but always from the paternal perspective; a man sees the fallen woman as a daughter, or at best, a sister. But here he wallows in an admittedly infantile attachment ("I was just a kid.").

Another thing I notice is the relentless frivolity of gay icons. It's not just exaggerated emotional displays they want, but pleasure without consequences (perhaps linked to the inherent sterility of gay sex). Very few gays appreciate Coldplay, for example, despite homosexuality being a virtual requirement for British men.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22867957)

"Most boys decided quite early on that since their penises would evidently give them no rest at all, they would repay the favor by giving no respite in return. The night was loud with the boasts and the groans that resulted from this endless, and fairly evenly matched, single combat between chaps and their cocks. To even the dullest lad, furthermore, it would sometimes occur to think that self-abuse was slightly wasted on the self, and might be better relished in mixed company....It was quite possible to arrange a vigorous session of mutual relief without a word being spoken, even without eye contact. It's very important to understand that ninety percent of these enthusiastic participants would have punched you in the throat if you suggested there was anything homosexual (or "queer") about what they were doing."

George Orwell, on the same theme:

"At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem but I think that St Cyprian's may have acquired a ‘bad tone’ thanks to the presence of the South American boys, who would perhaps mature a year or two earlier than an English boy. At that age I was not interested, so I so not actually know what went on, but I imagine it was group masturbation. At any rate, one day the storm suddenly burst over our heads. There were summonses, interrogations, confessions, floggings, repentances, solemn lectures of which one understood nothing except that some irredeemable sin known as ‘swinishness’ or ‘beastliness’ had been committed. One of the ringleaders a boy named Horne, was flogged, according to eye-witnesses, for a quarter of an hour continuously before being expelled. His yells rang through the house. But we were all implicated, more or less, or felt ourselves to be implicated. Guilt seemed to hang in the air like a pall or smoke. A solemn, black-haired imbecile of an assistant master, who was later to be a Member of Parliament took the older boys to a secluded room and delivered a talk on the Temple of the Body."

And from Francis Wheen's letter to The Guardian:

"That sort of thing was very widespread. Not particularly at Eton, but at the schools that prepared you for it. I remember at my prep school there was a music master who fiddled with the boys. He once sat me on his knee in front of a class - we were listening to Mendelssohn's Fingal's Cave - and he put his hand in my pocket and fiddled with me. In front of a class! And the other boys were actually laughing! We also used to have cold baths, and he would stand outside and tap each of us on the arse with a switch as we went in. There was another teacher, a good teacher and a very nice guy - he must have fiddled with somebody because he was suddenly expelled.

At Eton, if you were a fag master you chose the prettiest fag from among the lower boys. You just liked to have a pretty fag - I suppose it was a substitute for girls. The funny thing was, if you shagged one of the maids you were instantly expelled, but if you had anything to do with boys you got a severe ticking-off. And you hoped that by the end of your career at Eton you didn't turn out to be gay. Eton produced a lot of people who had John Peel's experience - mutual masturbation and all that sort of thing - but nobody was raped in my day."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/oct/12/publicschools.schools

Boarding school is just an exaggerated instance of a very common feature in Anglo-American culture: nominal equality of the sexes, but social segregation in practice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22874344)

the leftists have somewhat of a point in criticizing the package deals, but their remedy of making a fetish of creating a multiplicity of different gender roles to hit every conceivable point on the spectrum while making a big fucking deal about each one.

much better to encourage people to be less assholish to people who deviate from norms somewhat (which was already happening, naturally – there's less pressure to confirm strictly to gender archetypes and I think that's a good thing, though i suspect prevailing opinion on xoxo disagrees).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#44757262)

psychoanalytical correction for them is no more possible than it is for every woman out there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22866680)

1)"I have emotional characteristics of women" ->

2)observing women's interest in men ->

3)taking up women's interest in men ->

4) being fagget.

wrt transition 2->3, it's not that far out of an idea. For instance, I used to not be religious, but then I noticed that people who have similar interests/temperament to me tend to be religious, so now i'm religious. Similarly men who can relate to womens feelings better will naturally begin to relate to women's sexual interests also, so eventually become fagget.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22866759)

I think it's more about weakness. They're emotionally unstable and need a masculine influence to anchor them. Gays have an obsession with "turning" straight men. No idea if John Lennard is actually gay (though teaching at Cambridge is almost conclusive), but his letter touches on this sentiment:

"Arcement is also mistaken in defining slashfic (or just slash) as ‘any kind of sex between two men or two women’. The point of slash is that the orientation of one or more canonical characters is changed, which is why slashing is strongest in fandoms where the source parades heteronormativity or machismo. Kirk/Spock, Bodie/Doyle, Aragorn/Boromir, Darcy/Bingley and Harry/Snape stories all slash their canons, but a story featuring, say, Sebastian Flyte and Anthony Blanche in bed would not be slash, nor would a relationship between two lesbian characters in The L Word qualify as femslash."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n06/letters

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22867986)

Click the song's title in the menu to the left hand side in the window to hear what the guy who actually wrote the song had to say about it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#22868681)

My 2 cents: we migrate toward women celebrities because historically they are nice to us, as opposed to straight male celebs. Whether that's because the female celebs are catering to their fan base, or because they empathize since they are also sexually attracted to men, I cannot say. But it's hard to believe that Madonna, Cher, etc. would be anything but cool with their gay friends. And remember, Cher also has a transgender child.

And we don't try to "turn" straight men. You'd be surprised how these labels screw everything and everybody up. There are a lot of confused or "bi-" men out there who play at straight but flirt with us, so it's hard to understand the signals. It's inherently homophobic to label us as lecherous for not dismissing these signals as knowing that these men are "not for us". Instead you should get these men help and be less homophobic in general so that may help them to come out and be who they really are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#34184223)

Oh and by the way, whether I breed or not is beside the point. You straights create and bring us up. My (step)son dates exclusively women, so...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#34184425)

I don't buy it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#34184670)

Gays are degenerate because they don't like Coldplay.

?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2212146&forum_id=2#34184265)