all 38 comments

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–]FlyingKangaroo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks to Tumblr idiots I became kind of disgusted by the word “asexual” (because of the current LGBTQ associations) but this is true: some people don’t wish to participate in any sexual activity and that’s ok. I think in comparison to all other orientations (supposing it should be viewed as such - personally I’m skeptical) they’re the least problematic, in the orignal meaning of the term “asexual” of course.

    SJW braindeads created a community which is infested with people who confuse the genuine lack of sexual needs with trauma response or people who claim they’re asexual because they don’t think about sex 24/7.

    I find it very sad how asexuality is perceived thanks to LGBTQ, how it’s reinvented to fit the woke norms and how there is growing acceptance for loud mouth idiots as you call them (rightly so).

    Edit: they also don’t need any pretentious symbols or flags that orientations have. Representation bullshit.

    [–]Alienhunter糞大名 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Been around for a long time. I don't think there are any clear genetic markers for any sexuality and the mechanisms that determine what causes someone to be straight or gay are not well understood.

    Asexuality makes the most sense as something but the way I see it used it's actually shorthand for "low libido" so it's not a sexuality so much as it's a lack of sexual drive.

    Pansexual and polysexual I'm still not sure what they mean and how they differ from bisexual. My best guess from people I've met is it's a largely female phenomenon from the "I'm not like other women" personality type. Though I do think the concept of like generally vibing with the other persons personality rather than desiring sex and stuff, explanation I've heard trends as normal for women.

    Frankly I think all of these are simply coping mechanisms for people who feel isolated due to perceived feelings of abnormality due to not lining up with the Hollywood ideal of sexual proclivity. Except for homosexuality cause that's actually easily defined.

    [–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    I'm gay, and I don't have a clue where homosexuality comes from. All I know is that it exists. I do know that all these new "sexualities" are nothing more than attention seeking behaviour. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are the only sexual orientations that are real.

    [–]jacques1102[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Oh i agree with you.It's just with how the LGBTQ community is creating these new sexualities,(as if they have any basis in science)and the whole gay gene argument,i kept wondering if people were going to claim a genetic basis for any of it.It would be pretty weird for us to evolve in such a way to be polysexual(sexually attracted to people of multiple genders) when people argue that gender itself is a social construct.

    [–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    If gender is a social construct, then gay people do not exist.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Hell yeah, woke homophobia!!

    [–]Newzok 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Lgbtq community

    Nah, mate. This shit comes from social media and is treated like a fandom by autistic kids and girls who want to be trendy. There's gay and straight and then varying levels of bisexual(which most of these new ones fall under but it's bigoted to point out). Not to say I've not met fellow gays who say they're demisexual but they're definitely nerds.

    [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Coming from a heterosexual: this thread is ridiculous, homosexuality and bisexuality are naturally occurring in the same way heterosexuality is, just in much much smaller numbers obviously. It's just the way you are born, unlike the modern socially-contagion driven trans craze.

    [–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I know homosexuality is natural and it is certainly not a choice. But I don't know what causes it. I don't know if it's genetic or if it's caused by environmental factors. And by environmental factors, I mean having lots of older siblings or older cousins.

    [–]Newzok 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Iirc it's a mix of nature and nurture. Certain genetic factors make it more likely that the individual will be gay if the circumstances are this way or that. The older brother effect is definitely a thing, with the likelyhood a younger brother will be gay growing with the amount of older brothers in a family.

    It's certainly not clear as day, but there's pointers to some genetic and circumstantial factors. I've not really taken a dive into history but it seems like homosexuality and transvestitism have been pretty universal occurrences(no relation implied of course) with all this new stuff being obfuscating footnotes.

    [–]jacques1102[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I agree that those 3 are the only sexualities that make sense and are real.My point is with the new sexualities that the LGBT community is coming up with,from an evolutionary point, pansexuality and polysexuality makes 0 sense cause how would an organism evolve in such a way to be attracted to something that in itself is a social construct?

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I agree with you, I am referring to the people in this thread that claim that homosexuality is related to not having a father in the home, which is just blatantly untrue.

    But yes, pansexuality and polysexuality are meaningless terms invented by the same kind of blue-haired mentally stunted fools you see on Tumblr. It's no longer cool to be spicy straight, now you gonna be spicy bi.

    [–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Asexuality does exist, however it is a much smaller portion of the population than a lot of them claim. One thing I've noticed amongst the people I've met who identify as asexual is that... every single one of them has been very unattractive. And I do mean every single one. Almost like their supposed asexuality is a defense mechanism because they know they're perceived as unattractive. "Well I'm asexual, so it doesn't matter anyways!" I might be more inclined to believe an actual attractive person was asexual, but I have never seen that. Other common traits amongst "asexuals" is that they have been perpetually online pretty much their whole lives, and live with their parents well into their mid to late 20s and onwards. They also tend to be mentally stunted, for lack of a better term. So my guess is that for many if not most of them, it is not actually their legit sexuality. It's not genetic, it's just what they call themselves for a variety of reasons that exist as comorbitities with the general inability to get a partner.

    [–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    You're conflating the old gay rights discourse with queer activism, when both differ in fundamental ways.

    Modern queer activists believe that sexual orientation and gender aren't inherent characteristics of a person, but purely identities, forms of expression. They're also fervent critics of gay rights activists of old, by the way, because they consider them to be cowards who are trying to appease the status quo.

    The thought process is the same one transactivists use: if sexual orientation is only an identity, then why limit the number when each person can manifest their sexuality on different ways?

    Sounds familiar, doesn't it?!

    [–]Newzok 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Oh god, it's exactly my issue with that. Queer activism turns everything to confusing steam and undoes so much of the activism people risked their lives for, even antagonising the elderly pioneers who started fighting for our rights. How did the queer theorists get to control the discourse?

    Anyway my only countermeasure is to be an anti-idpol gay and make it clear that queer activists don't speak for any of us. It's a psy-op and smells of divide and conquer.

    [–]jet199 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

    Those people have extra chromosomes for that

    [–]meisthebigdumbTransracial BlackX Rockgender Bispecies 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

    Relevant: Homosexuality is only 8-25% genetic, and the "gay gene" has been disproven.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    I wonder if there's any correlation with an absentee father for gay men?

    [–]jacques1102[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I can't say for gays but i herd somewhere that there was a study with MtF transgenders where a large percentage had one thing in common."lack of a father".

    [–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I've had my dad my whole life, we get along just fine and I'm gay. Maybe correlation does not equal causation?

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Not necessarily, no. It may though. I'm just wondering how accurate it was. You have look at broad numbers of people and their relationships in the family. One person doesn't make a study.

    [–]meisthebigdumbTransracial BlackX Rockgender Bispecies 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Oh yeah, big correlation, also factors like child abuse, drugs, social isolation etc.

    [–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    This was an element of conservative anti-gay discorse since the 50s.

    If this correlation really existed, don't you think someone would have proved it by now?

    [–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Strong correlation with sexual abuse at young ages

    [–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

    Anyone who says homosexuality has a genetic component doesn't understand what they're looking at, seeing patterns in noise.

    Alexa, how do homosexuals reproduce?

    [–]jet199 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    They don't have to.

    Their dad's leave them and screw around and their mothers are crack whores.

    Loads of siblings.

    [–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Alexa, how do homosexuals reproduce?

    Most people who bring up this argument know little about genetics or how genes work.

    I'm going to make a gross generalization here, but bear with me:

    We can classify the caracteristics related to the survival of living beings in three basic types: beneficial, harmful and neutral. The harmful ones tend to he selected out and the beneficial ones are passed down.

    The neutral ones? That's where the problem lies.

    If trait x doesn't interfere with survival then why would it be selected out? An example of this are the different shapes of ear lobes, which have zero impact on survival of the species and so they stayed on the species even today.

    If homosexuality is still around then it is either one of two things: either a neutral trait for the survival of the species or a positive one. There's no way around it.

    Another thing: natural selection is about the survival of the species not of a single individual within an species. Some people tend to forget this, mainly due to lack of knowledge or lack of experience in the area.

    [–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Homosexuality is a behaviour. It is learned.

    [–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    But same-sex attraction isn't, that's where your reasoning fails.

    You can fuck anything you want to, it won't mean you're attracted to it specifically.

    [–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    If you aren't traumatized in your youth, including by exposure to degeneracy that's only into your eyeballs, you're only gonna want heterosex

    [–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    If you say so...

    Keep living the dream!

    [–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I wonder what the overlap is between the gay genes and the personality disorder genes.

    [–]Newzok 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    No gay gene as such but a mix of multiple genetic and outside factors. So there's not one specific cause that can be pinpointed. Human behaviour is complex, I suppose.

    [–]BiHorror 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    "Gender" is a "social construct," but somehow there's genes for it in regards to sexual orientation. Shit makes no sense, but this is LGBTQ+ we're referring to.

    Personally, if science wanted to go and try to search for the "gay gene"? Whatever. Sure, it could explain some things but it be just a waste of money and effort. When at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The only thing I can see happening is people trying to genetic test to see if their baby is LGB or not. To me, that's similar to sex testing (note: yes I know preferences) but it shouldn't matter, a healthy baby is a healthy baby.

    [–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Personally, if science wanted to go and try to search for the "gay gene"?

    It's not that simple.

    Even the most common functions of the human body, like knee reflex for instance, aren't only passed down by one gene. Why would this be the case with sexual orientation, which is a way more complex thing?

    Again, people who obsess over "gay genes" or whatever aren't scientists, but political activists on both sides of this issue who want to use science as a validation tool for their beliefs.

    They do not give a shite about genetics.

    [–]Athelhilda4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I’m willing to believe asexuality exists, however I see it as more of a symptom of a mental illness, something resulting from trauma, or a health problem.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Or as a synonym with low libido, which does not equal no sexual attraction.

    a symptom of mental illness

    Pretty much everyone I met on Tumblr identified as asexual, so checks out.

    [–]FlyingKangaroo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I feel like there is less than 0,9% based asexuals (just no libido, no problem for them) and rest of people identifying with that term is mental illness, Tumblr, etc. In some cases of the bigger, not based part, trauma too.