My Magna Opus about human sexuality. Essentials and fundamentals concertized.

I have decided to delete a lot of my previous posts about human sexuality and replace all of them with one concrete, fundamental and essentalized article containing a summary as well as all of the sources I found containing the information we have on the subject. I have removed from the article any of the subjective personalization on the subject based on my own experience and identity instead using only a summary of the actual facts we have. To show what is true and what is just narrative building by the LGBTQ +  lobby. 

At this time many people think we have an exact and full scientific theory of human sexuality that is built around the idea of being born straight, gay, bisexual or transsexual. Specifically, when it comes to non-heterosexuality and also specifically exclusive homosexuality as well. As well as definite answers on bisexuality vs homosexuality and its unchanging hardwired natures. However, the actual evidence shows there is multiple factors that can cause one to have a certain non-heterosexual preference, experience and overall orientation. There are several different things one looks at when they are talking about human sexuality. Identity and behavior are both looked at when studying orientation. Preferences, behavior and identity; all of these are looked at when it comes to sexual orientation.

The narrative that is said to be is as follows; one is born and wallah they are gay, straight, bisexual, or transsexual. That one is born and then there is an unchanging fixed "sexual orientation" for all time. That sexuality is not fluid or flexible within the non-heterosexual demographic. That it is a fixed thing that is with you for all people from birth. However, this is not the case persay in the information we actually have. Also, as part of this same narrative is the idea that all heterosexuals have never had same gender or sex experiences. The facts counter this as well with many people whom are heterosexual identifying by their 30's whom identified as bi or in some cases even homosexual in the past. This is based on a meta-analyze of the best Longitudinal Studies of people whom identify their sexual orientation.

This shows that some people in the :LGBTQ+ demographic are not immutable when it comes to thir orientation identity and in fact change over time. Some from gay to bi and others from gay to straight. As well as others moving from mostly heterosexuial to bisexual. Or others from bisexual to exclusively homosexual. This of course does not denote that there is no pre-birth component persay to orientation. but. does show that such pre-birth components do not persay remove heterosexual typical opposite sex attractions in the person in which same gender attractions appear. Our current data shows that most people with sexual and/or romantic desires for the sames sex also feel the same way on average for members of the opposite sex. Making the majority of sexual orientation that is non-heterosexual bisexuality and not the exclusively homosexual demographic as has been thought of in the past.

There has been numerous in-womb experiences that have been pointed to as to reason one might be born with a same sex attraction most can be summarized as follows; same sex attraction comes from an experience in the Moms Womb by which gay men are feminized and lesbian women are masculinized through the improper and abnormal levels of Androgens in the womb. For men this might be linked to a specific gene that was found by a Dr, Hamner back in 1993 and found to be present in test subjects in another study back in 2014. This gets all the headlines and the idea of fixed orientation gets confirmed. Including being called the discovery of the gay gene.

However, there is nothing in the evidence to indicate the gene is specifically intending to make that man homosexual as opposed to say bisexual as most into men have turned out to be. So, even if it was all this genes doing it is still not a gay gene, but, an Androphilic gene which gives the man an attraction to males. However, for most of the men into men population does not remove the Gynophilic attraction to women that a typical heterosexual male has. Further more only 30% of same sex attraction in men has been found to be tied to genetic differences. With the rest coming from environmental factors. According the very research pushed as the discovery of a causal mechanism in genes. Epi-genetics has also been pointed to as the cultprit starting in 2012.

However, there has been a fundamental flaw in all of this research. The denial of human sexual flexibility or fluidity. Also, the denial at least when it comes to men of the existence of bisexuality. All of the research was predicated on the idea that all non-heterosexuals are determined from this experience to be exclusively homosexual and never sexually fluid or bisexual. It has been assumed until recent discoveries that you gay if you are non-heterosexual. That fluidity was not real and that bisexuality was not the norm. We now know bisexuality is precisely the norm for most non-heterosexual humans and most likely if one knows anything about our history as a species always has been. This does not mean exclusively homosexual people do not exist. They do and it does not mean there is not some small minority of non-heterosexuals born with an actual fixed homosexual template of desire. There certainly is, but, not most people. The norm for our species is for men and women to be attracted to each other even in the face of/complimentary to desires for the same gender.

Not only this, but, it is for a good deal of people a changing template of desires. A changing template of desire this is fluid and not determined to be homosexual at all. In fact, most same-gender attracted people end up in opposite-gender and heterotypical relationships that would be "otherwise straight" to anyone that was looking at them from outside their life. To the tune of 80-90% of all same-gender attracted people in survey data that uses meta-analyze finds them in "otherwise straight" relationships and either identifying as bisexual, mostly heterosexual (Mostly Straight), or even exclusively heterosexual. This is based on Pew Research, CDC numbers and also the meta-analyzes I mentioned previously.

What about people that do not end up in this category? Of course the minority within the minority will always be homosexual and will not be bisexual or transition into a heterotypical relationship. These folks do have a static and fixed homosexual orientation that does not experience any change. So, some people are hardwired in an exclusively homosexual manor and that is just the way their life will be. We are not at this time sure, however, why some people are wired for fluidity and to be able to be what we call bisexual while others are not. We know it is not all just in the genes though. As mentioned previously only 30% of same sex loving/sexuality is tied to genetics for men (if the gene even is for that). Meanwhile no such mechanism has been found for women at all. There seems to be some mechanism by which those whom are exclusively homosexual either lose or never began forming the ability to bat for either team in the bedroom.

Also, the Androgen explanation is also confusing as well. For several studies on various parts of homosexual and bisexual mens bodies shows them to be more masculine than a straight male. Including in their hearing and Auditory Evoke Potentials. As well as in their Penis being bigger in studies than heterosexual mens. Which would indicate that somehow both exclusive homosexuals and bisexuals were if anything hyper-masculinized in the womb. Which makes one wonder why homosexuals are homosexual and not bisexual. After all Androgens also have been said to cause female bisexuality and lesbianism. Indicating more Androgens makes one prone to liking women. One hypothesis is that some areas of the brain of homosexuals males got this boost of Androgens while in gay people other localized areas got hypo-masculinized meaning feminized essentially.

However, it is also possible that exclusive homosexual men might have gotten the same treatment genetically and in womb as the bisexual, but, something else turned off any opposite sex desire template. The Epi-genetics idea would indicate certain things got disabled from Epi-genetic markers and this made them exclusively gay. Or it might be something else as well. Epi-genetic changes in a person can also come from the environment, so, external factors outside the individual could have through Epi-Genetics altered the way their genes were expressing namely revoke a originally wired bisexual desire template for a gay one. This could be a whole host of things and the sources I link to at the end of this article will provide an entire list for you.

It is entirely possible that exclusive homosexuality was not the intention for these peoples same-gender desire template and all same-gender desire minus other interacting factors is bound for bi-ville. Or maybe they were born that way as just plain gay, but, we do not know what causes it completely,. We simply know these minority of a minority exist, but, why who knows? Really in the end it does not matter. Anymore than it matters that most same-gender desire is of a bisexual nature or the high amount on board the mostly heterosexual train. I take a liberty stance on the issue of sex and sexual behavior, identity, orientation and preference. Every consenting adult should be able to smash what they like and love whom they love irregardless of their Journey to their current destination.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://scitechdaily.com/homosexuality-might-develop-in-the-womb-due-to-epigenetic-changes/
http://popsych.org/5-weak-ideas-about-the-origin-of-homosexuality-a-reply/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pop-psych/201608/more-evidence-regarding-the-causes-homosexuality
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals
https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/23andme-studies-the-genetics-of-sexual-orientation/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html
https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-4-how-does-evolution-explain-homosexuality/
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna
Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on SexualOrientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for SexualMinorities
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/nature-nurture-sexuality-gender
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/09/with-sexual-orientation-were-not-quite-born-this-way.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay-and-lesbian-well-being/201105/sexual-orientation-is-it-unchangeable
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730310-100-sexuality-is-fluid-its-time-to-get-past-born-this-way/
https://badgerherald.com/news/2017/02/10/professor-strikes-down-born-this-way-argument-for-homosexuality/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/
http://www.csun.edu/~psp/handouts/APA%20on%20Sexual%20Orientation.pdf
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/homosexuality-–-a-survival-advantage-for-early-man/
Lisa Diamond on sexual fluidity of men and women
https://www.advocate.com/bisexuality/2016/1/08/study-new-cdc-report-finds-more-men-identifying-bisexual
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/05/04/over_80_percent_of_bisexuals_end_up_in_straight_relationships_why.html
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310172---Sexual Orientation and the Auditory System

Confessions of a 30 year old Objectivist

Recently I was in a conversation with one of my friends and the head of the Ontario Libertarian Party. Specifically about Objectivism, the denial of Evolutionary Psychology by the people at the Ayn Rand Institute and Objectivism the philosophy. During the conversation we went over how the Institute still believed in a blank slate human without innateness. Which I am against as all of our current science says it is wrong. We have natures based on many things; from chromosomes to the Androgen bath in-utero. The denying this is to deny science.

I mentioned it was ironic as reality is the arbiter is one of the core aspects of Objectivism the philosophy. So, by denying evolved natures it is denying in fact a core tenant of modern biology in our species. Which is in turn denying objective reality the core of Objectivism. We had an interesting conversation and in it I realized I was letting the opinions of other Objectivists determine whether I identified as one as opposed to letting whether I agreed with the philosophy be the determining factor. This I now see is a mistake as my views on rational/enlightened selfishness has not changed anymore has my views on government.

Where I disagree with many Objectivist groups is on the idea of Ayn Rand being the only worthwhile philosopher and Objectivism being mandatory for being a rational person, To me the primary thing is being in a relationship with reality if you will and not whether one is an Objectivist or even agrees with Objectivism. What matters is being rational and being in favor of limited government is hopefully where one ends up from that process However, I still do think that enlightened selfishness is a virtue. That altruism is cancerous and that self-destruction through sacrificing personal happiness is one of the core evils of the our age. This has not changed within my world view.

In our conversation Allen the person I was speaking with made an astute and true comment that stuck with me the rest of the evening. That what is often called Biological Altruism is not altruism at all. Doing things to keep alive your genes even if it seems sacrificial is not sacrifice for keeping your genes in the human species is selfish not sacrificial. It is not altruism that drives the things mistaken for sacrifice, but, a deep seated selfishness in the gene level. Thus Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene." All so-called altruistic acts which are NOT actually sacrificial are simply egoistic benevolence and nothing more on an genetic level.

We help others not just because it is "right," but, because of the feedbacks our brains get and also because it means we are more likely to garner favor and breed. As well as keeping a reputation that is good in our social circles. It is a selfish act that comes across as altruistic when really it is an egoistic benevolence at work which is not altruism at all. The philosophy known as altruism is not present anywhere in nature and is in fact further from our evolved Animal natures as Homo-Sapiens than an enlightened selfishness which acknowledges justice with its corollary of benevolence toward others. In fact, the very evolutionary psychology that ARI refuses to acknowledge if anything validates rational self-interest as a model.

Social Justice Lunatics add Black & Brown to the Pride flag as representations of race.

So, Black Activists have decided to fuck with the Pride Flag by adding two new colours to it. A bland and brown strip representing blacks and browns in skin colour. It is so ludicrous as nothing in the flag represents race of any kind. Each of the colours represent something different and they are as follows;

Nothing in the Pride flag is marked as any specific race, sex, ethnicity or national origin. As much as I am not a fan of the Pride movement (at least in the 1st world) I know what the flag represents. It has nothing to do with any sort of demographics that have to do with race. There is no need to take the flag representing Pride and add in colours representing ones race. It is itself racist and separates the races into separate teams.

I might shit talk LBGT communities and Pride organizations over various things. However, that does not mean Black Activists should be coming in and wrecking things by adding in racism politics to Pride. There is already enough identity in Pride as it exists already. The last thing that needs to happen is for more identity politics to be added on top of what is already present in the broader Pride movement.

This is the curse of gays accepting the Social Justice Warriors and their progressive stack bullshit. The gbl will be pushed under the bust for the sake of Trans-trenders and for the sake of the bed they have built with nut case zealots. Black activits LEAVE the Pride Flag alone! For fucks sake and feminism leave gay/bisexual men alone too! Fuck off with your Social Justice far leftism you are cancer on everything you touch! Fuck off fuck off!

The stigma of Right-Wing and right leaning LGBT among Pride is bullshit!

A while ago I wrote about how I had issues with LGBT politics and also certain ways they acted in general. I wrote about the toxic nature of the broader Pride movement and their attitudes being horrible. I wrote about how there was a consistent world view that was quite bad in tone. I am not taking that back in the slightest with this article. You see the Pride movement is largely publicly made up of the type of people I mentioned I could not stand. So, my not being a fan is not based on the people whom are within that category collectively. However, instead is based on general trends I saw over the years.

That being said I wanted to throw some light on the often over looked group within the group. That being the right-wing and right leaning lgbt groups and individuals whom are often left out. While the loudest and shrillest wackados are given the loud speaker to spread the message of acceptance. There is quite a fair number of right leaning and non-Social Justice Warrior lgbt folks out there. Some of them have their own organizations and some of them just stand alone. However, you would never know it based on the stereotypical version of an lgbt person you get shown or run into. For example; I have both identified as the g and b in the past. However, I came out as being on the right while still using the g.

This is not what most people think of when they think of a gay person. Someone whom is as far right as you can get within Canadian politics. Yet, there I was a staunch Rightist and a registered member of the Libertarian Party of Canada. I was a minarchist in a strange land and yet there I was. Over the years my sexual self identification has changed. Yet, my politics has not and is still the same as it was back then. I am for liberty and freedom in person and economic matters. I do not use the term libertarian usually due to the connotations it has from some of the more fringe elements of the movement. However, libertarian, classical liberal or political Objectivist are the 3 closest words to my views on things.

However, I am not alone. Although I am even further right than most right leaning lgbt outside of the Libertarians themselves there are other right leaning individuals and organizations out there which blow the lid off the not wanting to talk about rightist lgbt peoples. This is why when criticizing LGBT I will tend to use the term Pride instead. Or sometimes Gay Fascists or Big Gay or other words. I want to distinguish between non-leftist lgbt and SW lgbt from just the standard individual lgbt person which can be either good or bad. I have issues with the ideas held in the head of a lot of lbgt people. I have issues with their philosophies and with certain things they do with their life. That does not mean their love life.

However, a reasonable lgbt person can be reasoned with just like anyone else. The question is how to find them when so many are unreasonable and toxic individuals. I am going to list some links in this article to right leaning organizations and non-SJW organizations of lgbt people to show some examples for my readers. The idea that lgbt is owned by the left needs to stop. LGBT and LGBT allies whom are right leaning, or even apolitical need to come out of the closet and be heard. The Social Justce and loud lefties need to stop putting lgbt and lgbt allies back into the closet because they do not agree with our politics.

LGBTory lists its core political beliefs as supporting limited government and personal and economic freedoms, opposing despotic governments and terrorist groups that persecute minorities including LGBT people, and supporting entrepreneurs and small business owners.

The (Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) is an organization that works within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for LGBT people in the United States. LCR acts under the statement: "We are loyal Republicans. We believe in limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin Republicans represents an important part of the American family—taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation's greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty and equality. We believe equality for LGBT Americans is in the finest tradition of the Republican Party. We educate our Party about why inclusion wins. Opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP's core principles of smaller government and personal freedom." 

The Outright Libertarians is a specific caucus or group within the US Libertarian Party that is made up of LGBT and allies. I do not agree with all of their views, but, they still exist.  

Here is the Wikipedia article containing links to information about various different right-wing lgbt groups (here listed as Conservative) in the broader world wide stage. 

Here is a good article containing comments on lgbt and more links to groups from a libertarian prospective.  

According to an FAQ from The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center):

While many conservatives believe that homosexuality should be outlawed and many liberals believe that homosexuals should be given special rights, Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral. And since individual rights are grounded in the nature of human beings as human beings, homosexuals do not deserve any more or less rights than heterosexuals.^[13]

Objectivist psychotherapist Michael J. Hurd supports gay marriage as falling under the rights of individuals to associate voluntarily. Unlike Rand, however, he does not view homosexuality as immoral, stating that "a gay marriage... though unconventional and highly controversial, can be a loving and highly satisfying union between two individuals."^[14][15]

Objectivist psychologists Ellen Kenner and Edwin A. Locke expressed opinions similar to those of Hurd.^[16][17]

Chartered affiliates of the Objectivist Party, a minor political party in the United States, have adopted platforms opposing government-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, favoring legalization of same-sex marriage, and favoring elimination of the military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".^[18]

The idea that right wing equals Religious Theocracy or anti-gay is wrong. There is nothing in rightist as defined as the defense of properly limited government. Or in the case of the Anarcho-Capitalist far-far right of center a stateless private property based society. Which is or should be considered equated to anti-lgbt rhetoric nor policies. In fact, it was these rightist whom are responsible for the push towards same-sex legal equality. With the Libertarian movement from its inception in the 70's being for full equality under the law and even same sex unions being supported by the courts. The Canadian Libertarian Movement was started by a Gay High School English teacher whom was an avowed Objectivist. (I might do an article about that after.)

My 8 Values Survey Result: Libertarian Capitalism

Dancing is not at all non-conforming nor Gender Queer in anyway. Dancing really is a Man's Game!

One of the metrics in the studies on non-conforming or so-called gender queerness in men; AKA gay traits is actually of all things dancing. One of a few metrics that are considered non-conforming in studies to which I facepalm and shake my head. The claim is that dancing is an "effeminate" trait and thus makes one gender queer or homosexual typical/gaydar inducing, This makes no sense to me at all and is counter to all of ones personal experience of men that do dance. The human experience is filled in our history with men whom were not effete whom danced and also sang as well.

One of the biggest names in this history is Gene Kelly whom famously said in his day, "dancing is a man's game." The truth is that men have been dancing since time immemorial and at no time have these men dancing been considered effete or "Queer." In fact, women love a man that can dance with them. Men that dance show how well they move which is often very sensual and ones dancing style can tell a woman a lot about how that man will partner with them in the bedroom. Dancing as Gene Kelly mentioned is also a form of athleticism.

How dancing became associated with men being womanly or associated with gayness, or with being effete is beyond me. The truth is there is nothing more traditionally part of the heterosexual mating game than cutting a rug with your woman. Was Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing being queer and a fag? Or somehow being non-conforming to having a penis and testicles? I do not think so. How about Frank Sinatra? Fred Astaire? Danny Key? Clark Gable in his musicals? Carey Grant in his musicals? Gays do not own dancing in anyway at all. "Queer" is not at all a word that describes men dancing in anyway either.

Dancing is a human thing and it is not an effete thing at all. No man should feel less than for loving to move on the dance floor; nor should they feel less than for loving to sing along with it. This also connects to the odd idea that musical theater is gay, queer and effete for young boys or grown man. Once again dancing is a form of athleticism it just does not use a bat or a ball. It uses the body and a solid dance floor. It uses sometimes props which are associated with the dance this is the dancers own bat and ball. People whom classify this as non-conforming behavior in metrics for studies need to have their head examined.

No young boy whom likes dancing should be labeled as pre-gay children. Nor should they be labeled as gender variant or queer or pre-trans or effete in anyway at all. Nor should boys whom like to be singers be considered effete or pre-gay or anything. These things are not unmanly and these things are not to be attempted to be pushed out of a person. Let people be and let men enjoy singing/dancing to their hearts content.

Yaron Answers: How Would A Government Gain Revenue Without Taxes?

Yaron Brook answers a question from Justin: "How would a government gain revenue without taxes?" www.laissezfaireblog.com

How Libertarian Are You?

You are 95% Libertarian, which makes you a 
Hardcore Libertarian. 

Watch out, we've got a badass over here. A hardcore libertarian, to be exact. In your case it would be patently wrong not to classify you as a libertarian as you are in complete agreement with almost all of the libertarian positions, save for a few pet peeves. Perhaps you are one of those eccentric libertarians who have a soft spot for the trappings of hereditary aristocracy and monarchy. Perhaps you have a personal religious faith to which you assign priority over more worldly matters, or perhaps it's something else altogether. In any event, though you nurture a few pet peeves, you really are an ardent libertarian. You probably use socialist as a swear word, and you strive to banish the influence of statist scum on your life. While you are not quite 100% libertarian, you truly are hardcore.

My Political Coordinates Test : 100.0% Right, 61.1% Liberal.

Right-liberalism (Libertarianism): Individuals in this quadrant seek to uphold liberty as the primary political good in all respects. They tend to see themselves as staunch supporters of both personal and economic freedom and are deeply skeptical of collective plans and goals, stressing instead the principle of voluntary association and the individual’s capacity to make his own judgments. They typically see less of a role for the state than individuals in the other three quadrants, believing instead in the spontaneous social order of the market.

The Horizontal Axis: Left-Right

In our test, the Left-Right Axis is used as a measure of the respondent's economic views, with the Left favoring state intervention and economic regulation while the Right favors economic freedom and laissez-faire. This means that the Left tends to support state efforts to restrain what they see as the unfair or immoral aspects of the free market while the Right tends to think that transactions between private parties should in principle be free from government interference.

However, a scale covering the respondent's stance on economic issues is not sufficient to explain the considerable variation that is seen within the two groups. Hence we introduce a second axis.

The Vertical Axis: Communitarian-Liberal

All liberals start from the belief that upholding individual liberties is more important than catering to the needs of society. Left Liberals tend to argue that the individual cannot make use of his or her formal liberties without some measure of education and material comfort. In their view, this necessitates redistribution from rich to poor. By contrast, Right Liberals tend to argue that taxing an individual against his will in order to provide welfare benefits to others constitutes an act of coercion and thus a breach of individual liberty. They may support charity and aid for the poor, but they prefer it to be voluntary.

All communitarians start from the belief that the well-being of the community should come before the idiosyncratic desires of specific individuals. Right Communitarians tend to take what might be called a paternal view of politics, favoring a hierarchical society and taking a stern view of threats where criminals belong in prison and foreign powers are deterred by a strong defense. For their part, while the ideologues among the Left tend to hold liberal values, research has tended to point to a sizable segment of voters who combine a left-leaning view of economics with support for the more traditional values of their community and a skeptical view of immigration (Mudde 2013).

Weaknesses and Limitations

Our test is designed to cover the mainstream of political opinions as found within contemporary Western democracies. This means that our test has trouble accommodating extreme or niche opinions like anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, orthodox socialism, and fascism. While there are political coordinates tests in existence that purport to cover this whole range of opinions within the relatively simple quadrants set up by our scheme, the practical consequences (such as plotting centrist democratic leaders a stone's throw from Hitler and Kim Jong Un) seem to confuse more than inform.

Another issue is that, while both of the axes are equally important in theory, the realities of parliamentary politics tend to show that in practice alliances are rarely formed across the Left-Right divide. Although Liberals and Communitarians should in principle be able to form alliances against their counterparts, this almost never happens in actual politics. Hence, while the Left-Right axis has often been said to be antiquated, it nevertheless remains the single most important scale in American and European politics.

CT-GRI/BSRI Gender Role Test results: Masculine 100% and Feminine 44% making me Typically Masculine.

Results on the Open-Sex Role Inventory test : masculinity 118 and femininity 75.

Tackling the links between Gender expression and orientation/preference in ones partners.

Recently I have been researching into the known links between gender expression and sexual orientation/preferences in partners as well as positions in sexual relationships. Is it true that gender expression is actually directly linked to non-heterosexual orientations in adulthood? If so, is there a difference between the tops and bottom non-heterosexuals? Does penetrative same sex sexuality differ from bottom receptive same sex sexuality in terms of gender congruence and expression? Is there is a difference between bisexual same sex sexualities and exclusive homosexual ones? Can you really tell someones orientation just by looking at or listening to someone?

Well, it depends on which studies you look at really. Some studies say that non-heterosexuality be it bi or homosexual is linked to at least childhood non-conformity. They point out that feelings, thoughts, interests and behaviors of non-heterosexuals were more opposite gender typical in childhood and that there is also a link in that continuing into adulthood with ones orientation/sexual preference for partners. That seems to miss out on something important though. The research the American Psychological Association under Lisa Diamond did over long term time frames showed same sex sexualities are mostly bisexuals. What does this mean for the people in this studies? Could it not be possible those gays in these studies could turn out to be bisexuals.

How would one track this to see if it was the case? Well, for one we would need to know the ages of the people in the studies. We would also need to know if they were conflating bisexuality and exclusive gayness. It is possible since we do not know the stats that these people with opposite typical expression are as much for men into chooch and for the women into manmeat as the exclusively heterosexuals all around them. For the longest time bisexuality especially for men was denied its existence by the same groups that perform these studies. To the point where men whom set off this Gaydar and fiercely protested loudly they where bisexuals all over the bisexual scale were told they were "delusional."

On top of this the results are contradictory as well. Remember, I asked about the tops VS bottoms? Well, top homosexual males are more than likely to come off as the gender typical bloke, but, with a male hole for their man rod than bottom homosexual males. Men whom sleep with men whether they are in fact gay, bisexual or hetero and just horny without a woman around all share one core thing. Their gender expression is a typical bloke. This does not mean they might not say love Musicals or love Pink, but, they do not for example have any appeal at the idea of say doing drag as an adult. Nor do they for example use terms like "girl" to describe themselves. In fact, they tend to find gays that are too out there as more annoying.

Top homosexuals, bisexuals, bi-curious, questioning, mostly heterosexuals and so on are the least likely to be camp or overly flamboyant. They tend to for example be more into sports and be more physical than the bottoms. They tend to be more dominant in the bedroom as well not just the penetrative actor. They tend to be the Alpha if you will in the sack. Treating bottoms if you will as a chicks with dicks in terms of the traditional gender roles in the bedroom. They tend to not cross their legs and tend to sit with them more open. They tend to have less overemotional behavior as well, but, they are far from non-feeling Stoics either. This has lead people to believe that Tops in the same sex world have a much higher level of Testosterone during critical times of Androgen floods as well as a hormonal balance that is more flooded with said testicle juice.

However, if these people are also same sex attracted how can one say there is an inherent link between gender conformism and orientations? Well, some studies have shown a whopping 85-88% of gender non-conforming kids grow up to a heterosexual adulthood. However, that was back in 2012. Since then more studies have come out showing links between orientation/preference and gender expression. These studies one must remember though were done by the same group of people which denied bisexual men and still to this day refuses to take into their world view the FACT that most men with same sex sexualities are bisexual and not gay at all in the way we would tend to think of it as being exclusively homosexual attraction. 

So, it is safe to say given their track record that even if people in the study said "dude, I am not homo I am bisexual I love pussy OK." That they would turn around and like they always have say they were gay and in denial. Funnily enough they DO believe in female bisexuality and do not conflate them like they do men in their studies. Even though they included a Bisexual part of their most recent causes of homosexuality article they still come to end it with saying it is a minority of men that are in fact bi if they even exist. Which is laughable and downright insulting to the personal experiences of any and all bisexual males. With such links to the flat out denial of the bisexual male how can one trust any study by such a group of ignorant twats?

This same group denies that sexuality can change over time for both genders/sexes. They stake claim to a completely genetic determinism model of orientation which says one is not ever both or in a gray area. Or that sexuality can be a scale. Or that bisexuality is the norm for same sex sexualities. They stake the claim you are born gay and or straight. That very few people at least for men are both or bisexual of some sort. That Sexual Fluidity is rare instead of the norm in same sex attractions which we have ample evidence is the opposite in human orientations and preferences. Even the American Psychological Association has come out against the working group sighting their anti-fluidity biases. As well as their lack of acknowledging of bisexuals in their studies whom time after time request not to be statistically called gay when they are not.

So, I have come to the conclusion that although they might be right that for some orientation is linked to gender expression it is not something that is true for all or even necessarily most same sex sexualities. For example there are tons of masculine even full gay men and tons of feminine full lesbian women. If orientation and partner preferences was deterministic of expression than it should determine that all people with same-sex attraction are opposite gender typical when they are not. For every Musical theater loving gay or bi male there is equally as many Nascar and Football loving, Nacho eating and Beer downing typically masculine gay or bisexual dude. For every butch lesbian there is a lipstick lesbian or complete femme lesbian.

I think that in fact most people will conform to some extent to their Gender Roles and expression due to how it is linked to our Gender Identity as males and females. Since same sex sexuality is not the same thing as Gender Identity Disorders or Gender Dysphoric issues it would be normal for one to in some ways conform to ones gender expressions linked to ones identity. That I do think is much more deterministic than the opposite. Most people irregardless of orientation and preference will be men and will be women. Or will be males and females to some or more of an extent. For every unique trait that could be atypical you can find so many more that are typical of male and femaleness irregardless of ones partner preferences.

Men and women having male and female brains will mean that most of the gays and bisexuals will be just as similar to heterosexuals on a whole list of metrics while differing on others. Yes, there might be some small differences, but. the idea that you can spot a same-sex attracted person simply based on the stereotype of gender non conformism is bullshit. Gaydar will only work on the most flamboyant and out there gays and most butchy of butchiest of lesbians. Even than you could be dead wrong and they might be as straight as the next person just expressing themselves differently. The era of the Gaydar test needs to stop. Let us just treat each other as individuals. Let all men and women just be themselves. Most of the time that will be in accordance with natural gender rules. However, even if it was not just let people be.

You should not really be asking about someones preferences outside of if you are interested in them anyways. It is really no ones business whom is straight, gay or whatever in the day to day life unless you want to partner or fuck said person. So, let us quit trying to put people into boxes based on their preferences and just be peaceful/benevolent to one another irregardless of ones orientation. In the end it does not matter at all to the character of a person and the content of ones character is what matters not the content of ones brain and genitals on sex.

The West needs to "Man Up, "Grab Their Balls" and defend our rights from Islam.

I was scrolling through my Facebook and listening to Blaire White on Youtube when I heard about the London Bridge attacks. One of the things on my Facebook feed is an image spread by Amy Peikoff about The West waking up and fighting back. The meme was one to which I completely agree and it awoke my passion for this subject. You see I am not a fan of how The West is dealing with the Islamic threat. It seems to me there is a serious lack of fortitude from our governments. With being afraid to be considered Islamaphobic by on lookers they refuse to do everything needed to win this War.

We are at a war and it is the dismissing of this which is leading us to be in the state we are in. Before one can fight a proper war one must name the enemy. One must then go to work methodically figuring out and then executing the way to eliminate the threat that exists. How to destroy and remove the threat from existence. Much like we did with WWII and eliminating the Nazis. I am not a pacifist when it comes to matters of self-dense of our individual rights. So, first we need to address the elephant in the room we are in a war that Islam started and it is against Islam. We name the enemy and then work to eradicate it.

The West is acting like someone whom knows how to expertly use a handgun and does not shoot the rapist about to rape ones partner. If you started trying to break into my home and violate the rights of myself I would shoot you. Shoot you too death if you refused to stop threatening me and my household. That is what I would do if I was trained in and owned a firearm. If I had a partner and/or kids at home I would be even more this persons worst nightmare. I would expect the centralized government we get taxed to pay for would do the same towards its own citizens.

In this instance no matter how pink my shoes or the legs of my glasses there is no doubt my mind is a masculine one and testosterone flows through my veins. I would defend the other people in my life whom I respect if I had the training and was in the situation to need to with a fierceness that would be the perpetrators worst nightmare. I would destroy the threat and eliminate it if it was a present one. That does not mean kill, but, to be honest if in self defense I killed and took life I would not respond by breaking down. I would not respond that way if the decision was the safety of an innocent or an attacker getting what is coming to them. I would be happy and filled with joy not at the death of this person, but, at the remaining life of the innocent I saved from destruction.

This is also the passion I expect and demand fervently from the government in protecting the innocent from Islam and its threat on all of Non-Islam. This is a clash of civilizations one being actually a civilized more modernized and secularized post-enlightenment non-theocratic world that does believe in rights. The other does not acknowledge individual human rights and wants to control the world in a One World Islamic State where no decent is allowed at all. A world view in which we are all slaves. When you have people wanting to enslave you via force to join their cause you fight back or be destroyed yourself.

We need to do to Islam and all its supporters financial or logistically what we did to Hitler and the Nazis in WWII. As well as what we did to Hitlers supporters we need to go after both groups. We need to completely eliminate the threat before it spreads like stopping a fire before it spreads to destroying the entire forest of trees. We need to stop this madness and I thought the Ariana Grande attack that just happened would have been enough to finally make the testosterone flow in our government and my fellow Westerners. Western men need to speak up and demand their governments act on their behalf for them to protect them with the expertise and weaponry at their disposal. Act as their protector which is what the government is supposed to be the centralized protector of our individual rights.

If Western men and women did not look at the previous attack and demand the government go full Hard On on these sick bastards I do not know what ever will. Now we have a new London Bridge Terror attack already and no one is taking the decisive action to stop the slaughter of The West at the hands of barbarians that have not even evolved to the point of the Western Standard of the delusional creationist or anti-HIV pond-scum. The Islamists and their supporters are literally the barbarians at the gates of the West and they need to be stopped. They need to be cut down and eliminated. The men and women in the military our guardians internationally. The men and women locally in our police and courts. These protectors need to grow some balls or add some steel to their ovaries and start fighting back.

I am especially sorry to see the State of Western men whom keep clamoring on about Islamophobia instead of saying Theocratic Islam watch out. You cannot anymore continue to kill our people. You will not go near the hair on the head of our lovers, friends and neighbors. We will not let you win we will fight for the continued existence of the defense of our rights irregardless of any sort of trait either immutable or not. The Western culture means a culture of individual thinking, individual rights and equality under the law. Any Country that agrees with these values is our Allie in this War Islam has against post-enlightenment culture. Let us be ever present and protect ourselves as well as others around us.

Western men need to get their testicle juice back in this war. They need to tap into their primal man and fight the barbarians too the death literal and figuratively the threat against us. Men need to stop being pussies on the playground crying when it comes to this issue and demand more of their fellow brothers and sisters. Women also need to stand up and fight as well. Women need also to take on the archetype of the protector and warrior that men naturally have taken over the centuries. Both of the sexes need to be in this together and push the government to take action and squish the threat we face out of existence.