These don't seem to merit posts of their own, but still contribute to my ongoing project of explaining male homosexuality as psychological and physical pedomorphy (infantilization).
Before that, though, do you ever wonder what would happen if some group burned the rainbow flag in the midst of a Gay Pride Parade? Would the ACLU step in to defend the flag-burners' right of free speech, or would they help to indict them for a vile hate crime / veiled threat / etc. and hence beyond the protection of free speech? Google shows several results of people burning the gay flag, but not at a major demonstration -- just randomly in front of a gay center. With all the Pride Parades coming out this summer, there's only one way to find out for sure.
* * *
Speaking of Pride Parades, how do they fit into the big picture of the homophile movement being a surrogate save the children
movement for childless women? Well, first note that unlike other marches about "We're here, deal with it" by minority or not-so-minority groups, the audience for sissies mincing around in their underpants are largely out-group members -- fag hags, supporters, enablers, doofus dad types, and so on. The audience at a Black Pride march would not be 99% white, nor would the Womyn's Lib army march before a mostly male audience.
Gays have accomplished nothing to deserve the applause they're receiving, so it's not like a standard awards march. They're all glitzed up and in full exhibitionistic mode, though again not in a way that deserves special praise -- unlike a ballet recital, a fashion show, etc. They get a free pass for dressing up like clowns and awkwardly shaking their butts before a crowd.
The closest analog seems to be the holiday pageant that elementary school children put on for their parents and teachers. The audience doesn't care that the performers look weird and showcase no talent -- the point is simply to make them feel comfortable performing before an audience, without feeling judged or criticized.
Children feel awkward before a group, and in the years leading up to puberty start to become anxious about whether or not a social group will accept them. The holiday pageant is meant to alleviate their anxieties, give them some safe training experience with group interaction, before the real deal confronts them in middle school. That way, they'll be prepared.
Neurotic faggots require the same amount of constant reassurance about being accepted, because their minds never matured to the point where they can sense whether they are or are not accepted by some social group, and what they can do to fix the problem of rejection. Gays are still stuck in that childish mindset of, "Well if you don't want to accept me, then you're all just a bunch of stupid-heads! Who needs you and your stupid group anyway?!" Rather than, y'know, make themselves likeable enough to merit acceptance.
Adolescents take it for granted that others are going to judge them, and that they'll judge others in their turn, as part of enforcing norms of group membership and cohesion. They occasionally bitch about the harsh atmosphere of all that judging, but they accept it and eventually get over it. Only pre-pubescent children stubbornly insist that no one ever judge them. "Well I'm not judging youuuu, so shut up!"
The Gay Pride Parade as a great big soothing head-pat for emotionally stunted brats. That also explains why liberals are so drawn to these things, even if gay rights are not a high priority for them in general -- it's that paternalistic attitude. They feel a rush from doling out reassurance because it pushes their helicopter parenting buttons -- "Awesome job, buddy!" Only here it's misdirected toward freakish man-children instead of actual children.
* * *
Why don't fag hags take it personally that their gay bffs are viscerally disgusted by the woman's sexual nature? Gays don't merely have a "preference" for dudes, the way that some people prefer Thai food over Japanese food. It's the squirming revulsion of the 6 year-old boy -- "Ewwww! You put your pee-pee in her vajayjay?! Gross!!!"
Women are into taking things personally, especially rejection, so why not in the case of such unforgiving repulsion coming from their little gay chia-pets? The "fag hag as allomother to Peter Pan" theory provides a simple answer -- the incest taboo. Mothers expect their sons to be grossed out by their own female sex organs. Indeed, they'd feel positively creeped out if their sons showed any other reaction. They understand that it's nothing personal.
The same goes for when the faggot expresses his disgust for female sexuality in general. To her, he feels like a son or a little kid brother, so it's only to be expected that he feel that way about "yucky" girls. However, in the case of mothers and big sisters, they let it slide because they figure he'll eventually grow out of it.
Do gay enablers really have that long-term forecast in the back of their minds -- that if she can make him comfortable interacting with females in a safe situation (with kin or imagined kin members), he might eventually grow up and appreciate female sexuality? Whether or not he chose to remain behaviorally homosexual, that is -- at least appreciating female sexuality instead of recoiling in disgust?
We'd need some kind of in-depth confessions, memoirs, or clinical interviews with chronic fag hags to get a better understanding of what motivates them to keep socializing with someone who finds their entire demographic group disgusting.
* * *
When I looked into the anthropometry of gays, there wasn't a whole lot to be found, and it mostly looked at standard measurements like height, weight, BMI, and so on. I noted that they need to look at waist-to-hip ratio because gays have totally straight hips like a pre-pubescent boy, whereas adolescent and adult men have hips (though not as pronounced as women).
How about an even more out-there measurement -- butt volume? Haha, no amount of "no homo" will ever scrub this blog clean after that. In all seriousness, I was at a second-hand clothing store where a real flaming Peter Pan type of faggot was working alongside two girls in their 20s. One girl said she tried on a maxi dress, but felt that it wouldn't work because it would show her pooch. The gay tried to commiserate by telling her that, "Yeah, I know -- if I actually had any ass, I'd have no problem finding jeans. But I just have like no ass." Something to that effect.
After he mentioned that, I drew up my stereotypical gay image from memory, and then checked it against reality from the thousand queers I have to be around every day. His remark was not unrepresentative -- gay guys don't have a normal adolescent or adult male level of volume, whether from fat or muscle. You don't have to look very hard to see it (thank god) -- the back of their jeans or shorts are often totally flat, and kind of hanging down because there's no butt there to hold them up.
This is probably just one aspect... er, one piece... I mean, one chunk... or whatever, of a larger pattern of gays having less musculature. Yeah, there are a few gays that have a normal level of fat and muscle, but most of them look not only thin but also having nearly no muscle. They don't look slim and wiry like gymnasts, dancers, or lead singers. They look like a pre-pubescent boy whose hormones don't allow him to build any muscle just yet, blown up to adult-like size.
* * *
As another way of evaluating these ideas about gay pedomorphy, when have you ever heard a girl say that "gay guys have such better" body part? I've heard girls spontaneously get all excited about "omigosh, ballet boys have the nicest butts" (and few of them are gay). And though I've never heard them in person, women do discuss online about which groups have bigger or smaller dicks, and can agree on the rough outlines of who goes where. Or that Italian or French or wherever men are better in bed than men from some other country (you don't hear much about Swedes, for example).
With all their desire to praise gays being so much more sensitive, caring, and understanding than straight men, why do they have nothing to say in favor of faggots physically? Handsomer faces, stronger brows, more angular jaws, nicer butts, male presence and charisma, arms, legs, feet -- anything? Not as obese, sure, but that's only an advantage over lardass males, not straight males in general.
Women show a variety of tastes in male physique, from lean lead singer to mesomorphic athlete to big cuddly teddy bear. But all of them fall within the adolescent-to-adult range. Even teenage girls, let alone older women, aren't attracted to kiddie-looking anorexic types with weak bone structure, unless they're only looking for a "practice boyfriend" or a "non-boyfriend."
So, women have nothing good to say about the homosexual body because it's all so undeveloped.
* * *
Hopefully these extra links in the chain will serve to establish male homosexuality as a syndrome -- not just an error in some single, tiny circumscribed part of psychology, but an entire suite of abnormalities that all appear to stem from a disruption to normal psychological and physical growth. Not throwing it off onto an entirely novel developmental path, but simply freezing it in place in the childhood stage.
Labels: Age, Dudes and dudettes, Gays, Over-parenting, Politics, Pop culture, Psychology