696,979 posts

Coming out | What the Hell Were You Thinking?

Reddit View
[deleted]
April 23, 2014
19 upvotes

As a good starting point and a way of differentiating the discussion here on AltTRP, I’d like to talk about the subject of coming out. Coming out is often the first major step many of us take into acting on our sexuality. At some point or another in our development we come to the realization that we are in fact not straight and we are confronted with the notion of others learning this about us too. It can be terrifying and many people struggle greatly with the issue of being open about their sexuality.

It was not that long ago that remaining closeted was the norm even with friends and family. Within the last hundred years it was possible to be arrested for making public knowledge of one’s orientation. Any utterance of affection for other men was a brash thing indeed. Today in the western world things have calmed down considerably, but there is still no promise of acceptance. Religion and social stigma still compel people to reject homosexuality.

Still, underlying the raging voices of Westboro Baptist and countless fathers’ disapproving remarks, there is a steady undercurrent of those telling us we should be proud of who we are and that we should sing the truth from the hill tops. “Come out. If they’re really your friends they’ll stand by you. If they don’t, they were never really your friends”. Sure it is still a struggle, but it is a noble struggle. To heck with it all, be who you are and come out loud and proud. Post it on FaceBook.

The trend of indiscriminately outing yourself has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of. I certainly know where the impulse comes from. Its hard keeping something so big about yourself from people. You’d like to be able to tell others about that part of your life, or at the very least you’d enjoy not having to hide it. And its hard keeping track of who knows what, isn’t it?. Certainly we’ve been told enough that its bad to hide it that we feel compelled to let the truth flow like a fountain.

But stop to think for a minute about who benefits from this information being shared. Is it you? Do you benefit from your co-workers knowing you like it in the rear? Do you benefit from your parents know what you like to put in your mouth? Is it helping you that your roommate from college that you still sort of keep in touch with but not really knows that you prefer the company of men? Probably not.

If there is nothing else to be learned from the Red Pill but one thing, it is to be intentional in your speech. Every piece of information you exchange with someone should have an intended effect. Just try asking yourself “What is the intended effect of letting this person know about my sexuality”. Suddenly there are much fewer people you feel compelled to tell. Dan in accounting is not going to give a damn - he’s off the list.

You must also weigh the possibility of real negative effects that might arise from coming out. Friendships have been ended and jobs have been lost by such good intentioned truths. Its not hard to predict these negative outcomes, but we’re driven forward by the belief that persecution is preferable to sublimation.

Lest I be misunderstood, it is not the act of coming out that is bad, but rather the indiscriminate nature espoused by much of popular culture. Being open is largely a positive thing, but once you cross a certain threshold you forfeit the ability to tactfully withhold that information. That is when you have lost control.


Post Information
Title Coming out | What the Hell Were You Thinking?
Author
Upvotes 19
Comments 33
Date 23 April 2014 02:42 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit altTRP
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/163331
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/altTRP/comments/23qiz1/coming_out_what_the_hell_were_you_thinking/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pill
Comments

[–]redgreenyellowblu2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I know the thread is old already, but I'll still speak up.

There is another element to coming out, and that is the advances gained for gay people as a whole. If someone can come out and open some people's eyes that gay people are just people, then that is something to consider. This is, of course, assuming that the gay person is pleasant and respected for their contributions to the community.

I've worked at Catholic schools where everyone knew I was gay. I never "came out" to them, but in a small town everyone knows. If students asked me about it, I'd just say, "We're in a Catholic school so it's something we just don't talk about." I was well respected and I know I changed how a lot of people view gays. And I was able to do that without being in-your-face.

My partner typically handles things the same way, although when he was a pilot for a major airline, he actively fought for gay rights within the company. Eventually, the gay pilots group won. It wouldn't have happened without that kind of activism.

I don't think the loss of a friendship is a major consideration. Friendships grow and wane as interests change. People grow apart. To pretend to be someone else just to keep a friendship going seems dishonest and also possibly shows that the gay person is still ashamed of who they are. If someone is still in high school and just needs to get through unscathed by bullying, then that's different.

Family, especially the parents and grandparents, are another consideration. This is where a lot of wisdom is called for. Someone should be clear on if they are not coming out because they're still acting out of shame (and being the child), or are they not coming out because they don't need the parent's approval and just want to maintain cordiality. If the parents are people that would eventually grow to accept their offspring's gay relationships, then a lot is lost by hiding things from them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think a situation in which the subject is simply common knowledge like your work place would be the ideal as long as its positive.

Certainly I've considered the factor of "normalizing gay". Every normal person who comes out adds another grain of sand to the scales of social acceptance, sure. But I'm not sure that effect will ever be realized in such a way that all negativity is erased. And until there is no hint of possible negative reactions, tact is the only tool we wield.

I say that negativity towards homosexuality will never be removed for a reason. Its not an issue of endemic homophobia, I think its more a matter of something intrinsic to masculinity. From my experience many men I interact with on a daily basis would likely interact with me very differently if they knew I was gay. They wouldn't outright dismiss me, but there would be friction. I consider my assumed heterosexuality to be a sort of social grace or lubricant with acquaintances and co-workers. Though I don't fear major backlash if most of them were to know, I don't see any benefit to myself by telling them.

And so the notion that there is a detriment to not being out, that somehow I am indeed doing myself or the greater gay nation a disservice by withholding that information is what I dislike. I choose to with hold lots of information from lots of people as I see fit.

If you don't mind my asking, how did the information about your sexual orientation manage to become common knowledge at a catholic school?

[–]mikelovesvegas2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

OK, first of all, I'm not gay. I'm not a closeted, repressed gay husband, in case you're wondering. I'd like to share with you a story that happened 20 years ago.

My friend, Rob* killed himself. Not because of me, but because he didn't want to be a fag(tm). Rob was in the closet. He was behind the winter coats, and the various junk that collects season after season. He was way in the closet and not going to come out. Not to his friends, not to his family, not to the community at large.

We lived in a small town, with traditional small town values. In the five years leading up to his suicide Rob became more and more detached from our group of friends. I didn't know it at the time, but its because we were interested in chasing pussy all the time. He wasn't. Finally, after graduation, Rob went to college at the same college as I did. I had some free time one day and decided to track down my old high school friend. I met up with Rob and met some of his new "friends" by coincidence. I was surprised at how "gay" they were, but didn't care much. They weren't my friends - they were his friends.

When college ended, Rob couldn't find work in his field, and was eventually forced to move back to the small town we grew up in. Rob never could reconcile that a gay man could "act straight", and so he never came out of the closet. He sank into depression. Deeper and deeper down until suicide became his salvation.

About five years later, I made friends with a man who is what Rob would have become if he had persevered. I actually didn't know my co-worker was gay until he told me. It wasn't like he asked me out, rather he mentioned it casually when he described his living conditions. He said he had to get home to "Joe" after work. I thought he was joking. He wasn't. He was a masculine gay man.

Maybe if Rob didn't equate being a homosexual with flamboyant signalling (acting like a fag), he'd still be with us. I kept his confidence. I didn't tell his family, but I have discussed it with our friends after he died. I wonder if I had "outed" him earlier, if things would have ended differently? Maybe he would have realized that our group of friends cared about him, and didn't care who he formed romantic liaisons with. Maybe support from his family, or disowning by his family would have changed his situation.

Rob* obviously I've changed his name

[–]nyrp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Maybe if Rob didn't equate being a homosexual with flamboyant signalling (acting like a fag), he'd still be with us.

Interesting perspective. The contemporary mainstream story is that, if he had "accepted" who he was, and "acted out" his "true" flamboyant self, he would still be with us.

You'd have trouble convincing the mainstream today that staying in the closet is the mentally healthier option. But you may indeed be right. Maybe it would be easier for everyone to accept him for him if he could be allowed to be comfortable the way he wanted to act instead of a pressure to put on a performance. Maybe he would have liked to get support for who he was in the closet than have to make a public ordeal before gaining support for the entirety of his person.

But that was 20 years ago. I wonder how people experience these situations now.

[–]narcissus881 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I agree with this. It's clunkish and stupid to "come out." Come out to say what? For me it really is about the sex and I frankly don't want to talk to my mother or to random people about what I like sexually, and I don't think it's any of their business. It also destroys the mystery of sex and the adventure of seduction to buy into this cookie-cutter identity.

[–]nyrp2 points3 points  (31 children) | Copy

TL; DR As a straight guy, lack of tact, restraint pushed me away from supporting LGBT movement; diminished respect for gays.

Straight guy here. I was curious what the discussion could be like on a gay TRP forum. I found this post very interesting. My point of view may or may not be of interest to you but I'm going to throw it out there.

I was a supporter of all things gay until about 2011-2 when I started to feel that the political climate changed from "don't discriminate against these people" to "every social norm must change because we like it in the butt!"

I work in media in NYC so I work with gay people a lot. There is a heavy policing of language. If I ever expressed the least disagreement with any aspect of gay, bi, trans, queer lifestyle, I would be quickly out of a job.

I like the point you make because from my perspective, it is the indiscriminate, hyped discussion of sex that turned me off of the gay movement. I have nothing against what people want in their bedrooms, but it is precisely the fact that the bedroom talk has become so public because of the "fight for gay rights" that I started to turn against it. I, and many others, of any orientation, just don't want to talk or hear about sex, kink, experimentation, etc. all day long at work along with incessant feelgood spectrum of sexuality posts on FB. First post on my feed yesterday: gay couple corners a 6yo in the bathroom to explain that they are two husbands. First post on my feed today: Stay Calm and Know It's Okay to be Gay.

It was a stereotype back in the 90s that some gay people could not stop talking about being gay: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_dANhors2YU

Today, because it has even more political weight under the name "equality" or "anti-bullying", society is more cowed than ever into refraining from saying anything that may appear to oppose gays, which encourages some to talk about it more and more. It may not be perceptible, but there is some growing backlash. Unlike what political cheerleaders would have you believe, history does not merely march forward, it runs in cycles. Conservative mores will come back. This so-called dustbin of history is a fairy tale. History recycles. And when the pro-gay, pro-trans movement becomes historical rather than present, the LGBT community might do well to reflect on how they treated their opposition when they were at the height of their power.

My perspective might not be a popular one. It is certainly not politically correct. But neither is TRP.

But I offer my true feelings as a cautionary tale. I've marched in at least 3 pride parades. To support gay friends and boost my progressive credentials. But in the last 3 years the movement turned me off and I went to read what its opponents had to say.

I work with gay people every day but no longer join in their conversations that seem to promote a hedonistic revolution that frankly opposes children's right to the mother and father they were conceived from. "I can do what I want in my bedroom" slowly morphed into "I can reconfigure reproduction to satisfy the social order that I want".

That said, I fully appreciate your argument in favor of basic tact. I might not have turned away my support had the LGBT community not run with advocacy that outpaces common social decorum.

I think your post is strategically viable and advantageous for individuals and the movement as a whole. My comment may not be well-liked, but I thought you might appreciate what some of us have experienced as fallout of the unrestrained, indiscriminate celebration of gay sex/lifestyle and coming out as a necssary, enforceable, and unabashed good.

[–]ProjectWheee3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy

I'm curious as to what you were referring to when you said "...a hedonistic revolution that frankly opposes children's right to the mother and father they were conceived from."

[–]nyrp5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy

The idea that satisfying sexual urges and preferences is a higher priority than ensuring more children stay attached to their biological origins.

Surrogacy, and more efficient adoption markets without regard to gender being primary examples.

I.e. Every road must be opened to allow partners to have sex and relationships as they determine best for them, including the "right to children," whether or not they can conceive that child themselves. And whether or not the household contains a non biological parent or multiple non biological parents (polyamory).

If children came first, society would prepare children's rights first and recognize sexual setups as second.

I call it hedonism because marriage traditionally was a delimitation of sexual freedom (lifelong monogamy), and this "marriage 2.0" is rather about making sure hedonistic desires are fulfilled (Dan Savage's monogamish campaign, open marriages, poly marriages, etc). It's about fulfilling adult needs for pleasure and personal fulfillment rather than an institution to assure security (educational, moral, biological) for thé children that result from a union of a man and a woman. Because in the New Marriage, union of that nature is taboo because it's "bigoted" to mention men and women make a baby and two men, two women, or numbers greater than two do not.

I find it ironic that when gays entered marriage, the attribute of "sexual intercourse" disappeared from what marriage is "about." Seriously, it's subtle but I've noticed this. Lots of talk about love, emotional support, and tax benefits, but sex dropped from the national conversation and nobody noticed. Strange.

Does not imply that sex isn't happening in marriage contexts. Rather that sex is now hedonistic rather than traditional (unitive, reproductive, complementarily gendered, monogamous) in our new normative understanding and people are shy to address this fact. So we talk about love and subtly stop including sex. Because frankly, the gays have known (After the Ball) they will not get acceptance talking about sex, so marriage is now about love, and sex becomes more about hedonism.

Children are not part of the equation except for being made available to those who want them but don't want to make them with an appropriate partner (their coparent).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

it has to be understood first and foremost that marriage is about control. Its a social construct that enables one partner to ensure commitment from the other ideally in a permanent fashion. Its the codified version of natural pair bonding. A male trades sexual freedom for insurance of the female's fidelity. The female grants sexual access in return for protection and resources. You don't have to get married to have sex, in fact its easier not to. Marriage is a commitment grab.

There is a lot wrong with marriage today, and its been going wrong long before 'marriage equality' rolled into town. The transformation of marriage from a social contract into a "bond of true love" is entirely the result of feminism. Sex isn't talked about because sex is available outside of marriage. Why would I try to sell you on all the free breathable air that comes along with your new car? Instead the focus is directed to the virtuous aspects of marriage such as love while in the background the whole institution is in decay. This is not accident though. Its entirely by design. Marriage is a one sided trap for two people. Men tend to keep their promises. Marriage sounds enticing because they expect the same of women. Women have no such scruples and leave when the deal stops benefiting them.

I can think of no rational reason why two men should need to enter into the dilapidated crack den that is the institution of marriage. However the reason for some wanting to do so is exactly the same as it is for hetero couples. Its all about the demand for commitment. In fact, the demand for commitment amongst gay men is may be even higher because it is in such short supply.

As for all that going on about children, I don't think that conversation is particularly pertinent or well reasoned. While the traditional family is certainly well formed to raise children, its not a terribly common thing today. Children being raised by single parents is much more the mode of our culture and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Same sex couples adopting children isn't top of my concerns list because if nothing else there are two parents instead of one.

[–]nyrp1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

Well I guess you may be more of a realist than I. In that you describe the reality of what marriage is today whereas I still holds onto a pre-Feminism tradition of what it was.

My parents were married, had two kids, and are still married 35 years later. I would like to follow in that definition of marriage.

On a wider level, my armchair sociology predicts two tier marriage. At the top of society, marriage at or near the traditional definition. For everyone else, define marriage as you will.

I would only disagree with you that commitment is a valid attribute of marriage in 2014. Divorce rates remain high. And just the fact that divorce is legally easy to obtain, even if only 40% of marriages ultimately make use of it. If 40% of business contacts were rendered null and void before their expiration, we wouldn't say those types of contracts had permanent commitment at their core. Similarly, I think marriage today is more for social validation of a love relationship. And thus my belief that the fight for gay marriage is not a fight for gay marriage per se, nor especially for a gay mode of what was marriage was pre-Feminism, but is a fight for social acceptance.

I'm plenty for social acceptance of gays. As stated above, I work with and have friends that are gay. Unfortunately, when they need to further erode an institution that I believe is already in need of repair in order to beg acceptance from the polar reaches of the social spectrum, my former support gets eroded because the tactic to gain acceptance I find harmful to society. And furthermore, as you say, I don't see why two men would suddenly holds in such high esteem such a rotting institution when their participation, frankly, lowers the barrier to entry by one more notch.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

they need to further erode an institution that I believe is already in need of repair

I don't see how participation of same sex couples is eroding the institution of marriage. If anything its propping it up slightly. In the US the same sex divorce rate is lower than that of traditional marriages.

Marriage is still about commitment, but like I said before, its a one sided trap. Women initiate most divorces. These are the same women who wanted to get married. Clearly they benefit from locking down a man for the time they desire and then leave the contract the moment it doesn't suit them.

My parents were married, had two kids, and are still married 35 years later. I would like to follow in that definition of marriage.

I'm sorry brother but your chances are pretty slim of ever obtaining that for yourself. Marriage as we knew it is dead and we've got to understand it for what it is now, a device women use to control men, and ostensibly a device men use to control other men.

[–]nyrp1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I don't see how participation of same sex couples is eroding the institution of marriage.

It removes the former restriction of gender complementarity.

Gender complementarity was the reason for the number restriction. So shortly the number restriction will be seen as arbitrary.

The blood relation restriction will probably stay, but apart from that, such a wide diversity of relationships will be called marriages, the meaning will be eroded to love relationships with government licensing. And I don't see why the government has an interest in licensing and sanctioning love.

Marriage as we knew it is dead and we've got to understand it for what it is now, a device women use to control men, and ostensibly a device men use to control other men.

I can mostly agree with that.

Reinserting children into the equation makes it about more than mutual gender control. To me, marriage with children makes sense. Marriage to celebrate love is either government intrusion or women controlling men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

By this reasoning marriages without children would be eroding the institution. I'm not sure how trying to bolster the traditional frame of marriage helps anyone and I'm not terribly certain I understand what your original point in arguing this was.

[–]nyrp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I guess you are right. Marriage without children erodes the institution from my perspective. I suppose that it's hyper-conservative to think so, but if children are not central to marriage, there is no reason to put yourself in a permanent position of support for a woman, and furthermore, there is no reason to discriminate marriage from ANYONE who wishes their relationship (of any nature) to be recognized as a marriage... but that makes the institution meaningless. Thus erodes it.

The connection of my point to the original post was that gay culture pushing their sexuality from private to public (the coming out phenomenon) has had the unintended effect of shining a spotlight on the relationship between sex, marriage, and children. Namely, that the heterosexual norm united sex, marriage and children, and the homosexual norm does not and cannot unite sex, marriage, and children. Thus, people like me feel less favorable towards gay's position in society as their sexual norms become public and demand equality... because your non-reproductive sex, in a strictly logical sense, is not equal to my striaght, reproductive sex.

On the other hand, without "coming out" the entire gay lifestyle might remain closeted, which had its negative associated facts of life.

Essentially, I do believe, contrary to my initial presupposition, that creating more public space/acceptance for homosexual norms reduces the space/accpetance for heterosexual norms. The socially stabilizing force of marriage was a major defeat for optimal male-female relations... Though I would place more blame for its disintegration on the arrival of divorce and contraception. Gay marriage merely cements the changes that took place in the last 50 years and makes it more difficult to restore the social order that marriage, as linked to children, once made.

And that's appropriate to the RP conversation because it affects sexual strategy (would be quite different in 1943...) and it is appropriate to the altRP conversation as the coming out phenomenon ("accept my private life because I'm making it public") does have an impact on same-sex and opposite-sex socio-sexual norms.

[–]redpillschool0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Women have no such scruples and leave when the deal stops benefiting them.

BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/reader5546.htm

[–]nyrp0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Right, and I believe that bolsters my hyper-conservative argument that marriage without children serves no purpose...for men.

[–]narcissus880 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Good post. Gays should not be allowed to adopt kids, it's really abominable that this is allowed. I'm not being ironic either. Children aren't "rights" or commodities.

Plus many gays ARE fucking pervs and will pimp adopted kids out, as has been shown many times.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]nyrp-1 points0 points  (17 children) | Copy

I don't believe a person can "be gay". You can just choose to pretend that fucking around with your own gender is "sex." It's a preference, not an orientation, not a "way of being", but rather a way of behaving.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]nyrp-1 points0 points  (15 children) | Copy

No. That would mean you have homosexual attraction. You can't fuck women and be gay. You can fuck women but experience homosexual attraction.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]nyrp0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy

It means gay is not a way of being the way one can "be" black. Black people don't have white skin while they figure out who they are, nor do they have the option of being in denial. In other words, homosexuality is not an essential property.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy

I've heard this line of reasoning before and I mostly agree with it. However your comment "You can't fuck a woman and be gay" is simply wrong. Theres nothing physically stopping a gay man from having sex with a woman, whether he'd enjoy it or not. Sex is an act, attraction is a preference.

Being gay is simply describes the state of having the exclusive preference for men. It is a state that can change, at which point the label gay would no longer be applicable. It would make sense to say if a gay man is attracted to women, he could no longer be called gay.

However, since a non-negligible portion of what gives gay people their preference is biological and relatively static, it could well be called an orientation. It would be extremely difficult for most heterosexuals to develop homosexual urges and visa versa.

[–]nyrp0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy

I don't think it would be that difficult. Tell a 13 y.o. boy there is no shame in getting off with his 13 y.o. male friends, hormones will support him. Have him do it a few times, plus society telling him there's "no difference" between men and women or "gay" and "straight" because, as Burger King told us today, "we're all the same inside" and there you will have a man who gets off with men (if you think about it, people of the same sex can't really have sex, they can only get off with each other.) Call him gay or not, the word has no meaning but a political one. It does not actually describe a type of human being.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

If it were that easy, humanity as a whole would have died out ages ago. Shame is not what keeps good little boys and girls heterosexual, biology is.

There are actual biological and neurological differences between hetero and homosexual individuals. While the full mechanism of mate selection is not fully understood, the issue is much more complex than simply that of a choice.

Its possible that without cultural constraints many 100% hetero men would engage in some sexual activity with other men 'just cause'. That wouldn't really explain men who exclusively select other men and do not find attraction to women. Gay is a word to describe those who have exclusive preference for men, which does exist.

As for the use of sex, technically I'd say you're right in so much as sexual intercourse is defined as penis in vagina, as that is the only combination that would result in procreation. However, if procreation is our yard stick, you could just as easily argue that protected sex, which will not result in procreation, is not actually sex.

Sex is a colloquial term for acts that result in sexual gratification or orgasm between two or more partners.

[–]awesomesalsa0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Couldn't agree more. I'm bi so I naturally supported the rights and acceptance of gay and bi people. But you're dead on about the tide turning in the last couple years, although I would place it more in the past year and a half to two years. You said it perfectly: it went from "accept us for who we are" to "bow down to us or we'll make you pay." I absolutely could not believe how many people thought that the government should be able to force a photographer or a baker to work for a gay wedding. And then the obscene backlash to Phil Robertson's comments which were not hateful in the least (admittedly they were very cringe-inducing). It's like we're living in bizarroland

[–]BustaHymes-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

This is pretty smart.

Dudes fucking dudes is disgusting to most people, even all those "super pro-LGBT allies" on reddit falling all over themselves to say how faubulousssssss they think fags are. What they are really doing is trying to show how tolerant and open-minded they themselves are. But the thing is, they still have to suppress revulsion any time they picture what fags actually do that makes them fags. So instead they focus on the superficial or peripheral aspects of "gay culture" rather than the actual birds and bees.

So depending on whether their innate disgust or their desire to appear tolerant is stronger, you may or may not want someone to know about your homosexuality.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

Disgust is a poor explanation for the negativity surrounding homosexuality. I plan to address the topic in an upcoming post, but suffice to say 'homophobia' is not necessarily related to revulsion at the thought of gay sex. Its more wrapped up in male honor than anything else.

[–]BustaHymes3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Disgust is a poor explanation for the negativity surrounding homosexuality.

Trust me. Disgust is a major component. The reaction that a normal straight boy has when first introduced to the idea of gay sex is skepticism that anyone would want to do that. Well, that was the case 20-30 years ago, before such things were subjects people even discussed with young children.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

ok, I'll agree with you on that but my comment was aimed more at the root of the issue. Disgust is an extremely negative reaction and has to be born out of something more than simple indifference.

I'm sure for most strait people other men are simply not sexually attractive, but it would be a stretch to say that they were sexually repulsive either. "I'm not terribly interested in eating lettuce it doesn't do anything for me" is a far cry from "I fucking hate brussle sprouts and I gag when I think of them". If men were really generally so repulsive to other men it would be hard to function in the world.

Are men really so repulsive?

[–]BustaHymes2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Men don't find each other generally repulsive by default, just sexually repulsive. Like an animal that you could enjoy playing with or being around, but would recoil at the notion of sex with. The CDC says about 4% of men have sex with other men (gay + bi), and I reckon there are nearly as many who would be willing to but don't. The rest are more than a little repulsed by the idea.

If it weren't so, then low-status men without female options would find it easy to get sexual satisfaction with other men, instead of just becoming jack-off enthusiasts like Redditors.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter