Closet Homo
Was regularly banging hot as babes and still had any others he wanted like models. He didnt care about 'em. All he cared about was his conceited self and murdering 'em.
shareA homosexual man is sexually interested in other men, not in slicing people to bits.
Bateman wasn't a homosexual, he was a butcherysexual. Be precise!
Was referring in psychological terms.
and closeted because nothing fulfilled him. Had he'd been with men he might've been satisfied.
All right, I will accept that he is "closeted" in a sense, as his entire public life is a lie. Everything about him is false, except the mad butcher that nobody sees for long.
But there's absolutely nothing "homo" about him, to him other men are nothing but rivals and enemies. And if you're using the "homo" as a generic insult instead of as a descriptive term, please don't.
In the psychological that though he wasnt all out gay. He had strong repressive feelings like a gay closeted guy would.
Straight shooters wouldnt have all that build up with such beautiful women around and he didn't admire the women. He hated them. He almost had a sex with them to destroy them and make himself look better, conceited.
The gay guy kinda picked up on something which is why he hit on him. Had he not picked that up he might've not come on to him.
You're confusing a narcissist with a gay man. The gay guy thought he was attractive, that's why he hit on him.
shareAgain, what makes a person gay is attraction to their own sex, not issues with the opposite sex. Bateman was obviously deeply screwed up sexually, as what he really liked was to hack women to bits rather than having sex with them, but that doesn't make him gay.
Plenty of heterosexuals hate the opposite sex, but that doesn't make them gay, that makes them really lousy heterosexuals!
Which IMHO is proof that sexuality is inborn, all the women who hate men and men who hate women, but who can't stop being straight.
You think he only had issues with the opposite sex?
Hating women to such a degree could be conscrude as repressed homo feelings. He didn't hate women with a specific agenda. He hated all women.
Not heterosexuals that I know if I ever catch 'em doing it they quickly go in my gay book.
Why fuck, kiss, and hang with the opposite sex if you hate them? And hating a sex as a whole is pretty retarded.
A man is homosexual because he is sexually attracted to other men, not because he's a psychopathic serial murderer.
shareGay men are the biggest misogynists. Just look at historical gay societies, they all hated women.
shareGay men appreciate their own gender and are in connection and touch with it. It is not about misogyny, they just have women for besties, they don't need to use them for sex like straight men.
Do you deny history? Ancient Greeks = misogynists. Japanese shoguns = misogynists. Right wing Neo Nazis = homosexuals. Even today people like Milo Yianopolous and Peter Thiel, I could go on an on.
shareMisogyny has just become another millennial buzz term. Men don't have to like women, anymore than women have to like men, yet women tend to give themselves free-passes for their own sexism. Does a woman who hates another woman make her a misogynist too?
shareThe term misogyny is an overused tern. Mainly because the media and higher education is left wing so they constantly talk about misogyny but never about misandry. But that does not mean misogyny does not exist. It mainly comes from bad experiences with women and the belief women are inferior to men and it's very real.
shareIt exists only in the eye of the beholder, as does everything.
Women and Men can have a very different dynamic. One would have to go into all the layers and nuances of the sexes to find out why there are specific perceptions and idiosyncrasies between the genders and attitudes towards each other. The rest is just a specious and superficial stance to feel needed or on a par. Equality between the sexes cannot be an absolute either due to biological and physical differences, however this doesn't affect natural intelligence.
A gay man does not need or like women in the same manner that a straight dude does. This does not make them misogynist. They embrace their own gender and are at one with it. They are comfortable with the gender they are familiar with. Take sex out of the equation, and what is it a straight male can get from a female, that he can't get from another man?
I didn't say every gay male was misogynist (that wouldbe obviously stupid), I just said those two correlate.
shareYou opened with a generalization by saying gay men were misogynist and historical societies ALL hated women. Using Japanese shoguns and Ancient Greek warriors as an example, is not really making a strong adept point. These guys were soldiers. I hardly think they would have had any use for getting in touch with their feminine side to connect with women. They had no time to be precious due to training and conditioning and many would have also sought camradiere in their fellow warriors, on a platonic plane and some even intimately. It is just what it was, and era contextual.
shareMost of societies in history were militaristic yet most of them weren't gay as Greeks or Japanese nor did they necessarily have such low attitudes towards women. Being feminine doesn't necessarily help either. Milo Yiannopoulos is very feminine yet he's a vicious anti-feminist who have negative views on women. I know it's just one example, but being misogynists rarely makes it likely for one to be famous. My hypothesis is that being gay makes you more likely to not respect women or/and having negative views of women makes you more likely to be gay (or a pederast). There is a logical pathway for this to be the causal factor. For this, historical societies I mentioned are good examples. I could also make several others.
share...vicious anti-feminist who have negative views on women.
No different to vicious pro-feminists, who have negative and misadrists views on males.
My hypothesis is that being gay makes you more likely to not respect women or/and having negative views of women makes you more likely to be gay (or a pederast).
Do you have a reliable source of data on this you can link, or is it just personal anecdotal ballpucky you are making up? I am getting a sense of bias, prejudice and bigotry from your perception of gay people, especially when equating homosexuality with pederasty. Does a heterosexual pederast have negative views on males? share
"No different to vicious pro-feminists, who have negative and misadrists views on males."
I agree. Hatred of men is also correlated with lesbianism. However I think everyone is already aware of that, but few are aware of the male gay side of it.
No bigotry from me, I don't think being gay makes someone necessarily a bad person. However i'm also not so PC to to prevent me from exploring ideas that gay activists might find unpleasant or threatening. What data do you want me to quote? The fact that 25% of gay men admit to having sex with underage boys? The rates of STDS present in the gay community? You seem like one of those people that automatically deflect any critisim of homosexality with "prejudice" and "bigotry" regardless of weather it is reasoned or not. You have provided no arguments why my hypothesis couldn't be or probably isn't' true. I'm not saying It's a slam dunk case that can convince any skeptic (especially since so many people today would never accept anything negative about homosexuality since pro LGBT has become a new religion) but I think there's something to it.
As for pederasty, how am I bigoted for saying that hatred of women makes more likely for one to become a pederast? Physical similarity of young boys with females is probably one reason for it. If one is attracted to feminine looking people (which is in male nature) but thinks women are a plague (or is not attracted to them), there is logical pathway of him becoming attracted to little boys. I never said all gay men were pederasts. (many of them are and I think those two things causationally correlate, meaning being a gay man increases the possibility of one being a pederast, but that does not make all gay men pederasts). Please stop being so butthurt and engage in thought stopper terms like "homophobia" and accept the possibility that something unfavorable to gay activists cause sometimes might be correct. You might disagree with my hypothesis, but I don't think it's an unreasoned one
You might disagree with my hypothesis, but I don't think it's an unreasoned oneIt is both unreasoned and distorted, which appears born of personal issues with homosexuality, so you can find justification to malign it.
Hatred of men is also correlated with lesbianism. However I think everyone is already aware of that, but few are aware of the male gay side of it.Male and female dynamic, as already pointed out, does not quite operate in the same ballpark. Not all feminsits are lesbians either, that is the sterotypical image of feminist lesbians. Are gay men jealous of women, are lesbians jealous of men? Some will be, many will be content with themselves and comfortable with their gender. The gay male would also largely be less accepted than the gay female. Women are sexualized by straight men and hot lesbians would also be a turn on, not so for gay guys in the eyes of a straight dude. I don't want to trivialize prejudice of lesbians, but it is pretty much an empirical fact. Males do not necessarily need females, in the way that a society needs males, unless they want to be mothered themselves, or have them bear their children.
If one is attracted to feminine looking people (which is in male nature) but thinks women are a plague (or is not attracted to them), there is logical pathway of him becoming attracted to little boys.You do realize that since the heterosexual population is the majority over a much smaller minority of gay guys, that there is a far greater number of young girls being sexually molested by males, than males molesting male children. In the CC it would largely be homosexual attraction, but those issues within this organized religion goes much deeper than just pedophile priests.
By your logic, you are really stating that it would be a straight man that is attracted to young boys, because of the feminine characteristic in it. Gay men are attracted to the masculine, not feminine.
share
t is both unreasoned and distorted, which appears born of personal issues with homosexuality, so you can find justification to malign it.
No it's not unreasonable you're just butthurt about it. Even if I was prejudiced it wouldn't prove it my hypothesis was false.
Male and female dynamic, as already pointed out, does not...
That has nothing to with what I'm talking about.
Male homosexuality correlates with misogyny plus there is a logical pathway of causation and you haven't done anything to debunk it.
You do realize that since the heterosexual population is the majority over a much smaller minority of gay guys, that there is a far greater number of young girls being sexually molested by males, than males molesting male children.
I've come across data that child sexual abuse among homosexuals is so severe that it doesn't shy way from straight sexual abuse despite a much larger straight community. However the fact that the total child abuse among straight people is still larger is all irrelevant as it is disproportionate among homosexuals therefor homosexuality is a risk factor. And if something is a significant risk factor it shouldn't be celebrated. This is where STDs also come into play.
By your logic, you are really stating that it would be a straight man that is attracted to young boys, because of the feminine characteristic in it.
No because straight people are attracted to women and boys are males. Homosexuials are the ones that are very often pederasts. That's what the data says. 25% of them admitted to having sex with boys, the real number is probably way higher.
Gay men are attracted to the masculine, not feminine
Tell that to Milo Yiannopoulos. He has pictures of nude young boys all over his house and is telling us how pederasty should be celebrated. And he's just one gay guy that I got a glimpse into his int. decoration as well as pederast views.
share
Even if I was prejudiced it wouldn't prove it my hypothesis was false......Male homosexuality correlates with misogyny plus there is a logical pathway of causation and you haven't done anything to debunk it.....Tell that to Milo Yiannopoulos.Nothing you have said proves your hypothesis is true. That onus is on you and a hypothesis isn't even real evidence, especially if based on anecdotal statistical evidence that is only one small tiny segment of a bigger picture.
Milo Yiannopoulos is not the mouth piece, nor is he representative of all gay people. Sounds to me like you are a media zombie and one that will distort something into fitting their own world view, that isn't born out of rationale.
Male heterosexuality accounts for more misogyny, if you care to factor in domestic violence statistics, rape statistics and even the "equality" issue in corporate positions. I'd say using women just for sex is a negative right there for straight men.
Your narrow sighted prejudiced approach appears based on obsession with gay people and that is very telling and even weird. share
Again most prejudice accusations and no real arguments. My theory does not need to be "proven" to make sense. Actually It's one of those ideas that can never be proven especially to a skeptic that doesn't want to believe it. All I'm saying is there is some connection to male misogyny and homosexuality just like there is with lesbianism and misandry. Milo represents a good chunk of the gay male population. I've pointed out how 25% of gay men admitted to having sex with underage boys, there is a connection between male homosexuality and pedophelia. Heterosexual acts of violence against women are due to the fact straight men live with and are hurt by women. All straight men do not need to be free from violence against women for my theory to make sense. There's nothing weird about criticism of homosexuality especially where the criticism is warranted. You're just not used to it because you live in gay bubbe and most of society has in recent years has been brainwashed in a deliberate propaganda/conditioning campaign and never dares to talk about issues with homosexuality. (because that would be "homophobic" and hateful)
My theory makes sense and of course a gay person like you wont' accept it. The fact that yo're so defensive about it an go back and forth in a debate with me proves there is something to it otherwise you'd just ignore it. You're just one of those gays that will never believe anything negative about homosexuality. There are uincomfortable facts about gays that the mainstream never talks about, pedophelia rates and STDs are just one thing along with promiscuity and high drug use. And that is just scratching the surface.
No you're right, I believe more in negativity of heterosexuality.
Those stats are not representative of the whole. Survey a different group and you will get different results. Your conditioning appears to be born out of your own projection of gormless absurdity and risible contempt for something you obviously fear.
If you are concerned about the celebration of those that are gay, you can always go out and have a try hard hetero celebration. I'm sure it will be a blast....eyeroll
I do not fear anything. I just love having a dissenting opinions and going against the establishment dogmas.
shareThat is fine and many people do. But that is also the irony which appears lost on you. Your own blindsided dogma has gotten the better of you.
shareNo dogma from me, I'm just exploring ideas. Just because the deas that I propose are threatening to some so they naturally trigger a defense mechanisms like in your case does not mean I'm being dogmatic. The fact that you can't even accept that there might be at least some truth in my idea is evidence for that. The other BS ideas you believe in just confirms you're on of those gays that in your gay echo chamber convince themselves in some truths in order to feel better about yourself. I won't even go into them, because I feel I have nothing to learn form debating with you.
shareMore like Ideals than Ideas and we know how certain ideals that promote hate can turn out. What we learn from history, is not to go there again.
sharePursuit of truth should not be avoided out of phobias that it might lead to negative attitudes in some other people. Even if it should, it does not mean this decision to bury these pursuits renders them false.
shareYou would have to prove them true first and not just based on your own subjective prejudices.
shareThat is the kind of an idea extremely difficult to "prove" especially in light of the modern prejudices against it. The mainstream with modern attitudes towards homosexuality would never accept it.
shareWhat are these mainstream and modern attitudes that you appear to take umbrage too regarding homosexuality? You can only account for and own your own thought process as an individual.
Are there mainstream modern attitudes towards heterosexuality that would never be accepted, or is it about wanting to see one sexuality as being superior over the other?
The fact that any criticism is immediately, demonized and censored. I know it's a cliche to say this but it's pure political correctness.
I I were to write critisim of heterosxuality It would be kind of laughed at (deservedly) but it wouldn't be demonized or censored.
I am not big on political correctness myself, but with homosexuality, a lot of strides have had to have been taken to get to some sort of level of acceptance by society and the establishment.
Lets not compartmentalize a few rotten apples in a barrel, to infect the rest of the dynamic. These exist in all facets.
We all have a right to our opinions, but not at the expense of demonizing
an entire category with a generalization that amounts to nothing anyway. This can be said of all otherwise.
The social paradigm shift regarding homosexuality has little to do with studies, facts or evidence and much more to do with conditioning and activism (propaganda). I haven't said all gay men are a certain way so it's not my intention demonizing an entire group. When I'm against is shying away from exploring truth when it is not convenient.
shareThe truth is not the same for everyone. To claim what is only perceived as a personal truth about homosexuality, and in your case it was about misogyny and correlating it with pedophilia is pushing the envelope for many. It doesn't appear born out of any solid evidence or facts, except your own perception of an archetype. It is not empirical only anecdotal.
You are asking for others to explore your truth, but to what avail and to prove what?
On the contrary this idea has both logical causal mechanisms as well as historical and present correlations. Correlations of male homosexulaity and pedophelia aren't seen as pushing envelope to anyone who has seen the data isn't in denial about the subject. I haven't gotten any satisfying rebuttal from you why the theory cant be true other than claiming I'm prejudiced which is a typical activist/identity reply which doesn't prove anything. You can claim I'm prejudiced and there's nothing I can do to convince you, but so can you be prejudiced in the other direction. I haven't said the idea is officially proven, I'm just saying there's evidence for it and I think there's something to it. If you want we can agree to disagree.
shareI haven't gotten any satisfying rebuttal from you why the theory cant be true....It is your point. The onus is on you to provide solid factual proof of your claims on a broader scale, despite whatever evidence you are basing it on.
There is evidence for many things, including the misogyny, sexism, domestic violence and pedophilia of heterosexuals, but it doesn't mean that they all get lumped into the same category of attitude\behavior.
You are over-thinking it all to want to be proven right or have others agree with you. share
Not it's not on me to prove it, because that's just my opinion. I have provided my evidence and the otheris will decide themselves if there's anything to it. I don't have to convince every skeptic especially a gay one like yourself who wouldn't acknowledge in anything threatening to his identity regardless of the evidence.
shareIt is your opinion, that is not evidence of proof or truth.
You seem to have issues with gay don't you. Have you seen someone about this?
It's an opinion that has some evidence for it. I have no issues with gay people. I think they can't help how they feel and I don't believe their behavior is necessarily immoral. I just don't like political correctness prevents us exploring ideas. (I like for example Camille Paglia. She isn't ashamed of being gay but she won't hesitate to say bad things about homosexuality when she thinks it's warranted). You seem to be one of those gays that isn't into political correctness unless it's about your identity. Kinda like Milo who likes to criticise all other LGBT groups except his own. When somebody proposes something unfavorable about your identity then let's shut down the our thoughts and start calling people homophobes .
sharewell for a start, female dynamic of homosexuality operates on a different sphere from male dynamic of sexuality.
I think it is about time for heterosexual people to not hesitate to call themselves out on their own behavior, which isn't any different for what you are calling out gay people for. The evidence is not biased.
You condescend to gay people, no differently than what you accuse Milo of doing.
I wont' get into male vs homosexuality with you, It has nothing to do with the point I was making regarding Paglia. I also think you are biased being a gay male. I don't have a problem gays calling out heterosexuals for their heterosexual behavior. How do I condescend the same as Milo? Please explain to me.
shareI am not sure what your point is, apart from you wanting to call out homosexuals for their attitude. What is is you are wanting to prove or drive at? All I am getting from you is what you believe is an inclination towards pedophilia and misogyny, which you have no solid basis for, except what is your own projection.
Any bias is going to be reflected by the sexuality identity.
You single out Milo because he condescends to those that condescend. That is what you don't like about him, yet you are doing the same thing regarding homosexuals.
You're not making any sense. I have made my case and it has evidence for it. You haven't provided any arguments why it can't be the case. MIlo is hypocrite because he criticises all other LGBT groups but never his own despite the fact that three's plenty there. There, I can't type anymore it's getting too narrow. If you want we can continue this privately, this is going nowhere anymore.
shareMales do not necessarily need females, in the way that a society needs males, unless they want to be mothered themselves, or have them bear their children.
I have no idea why you pivoted in a completely different direction here, and what you wanted to prove with the above, but this statement makes absolutely no sense.
Males sure as hell need females a lot. Society also probably needs females more than males since males do not bear children, especially as we become more technologically advanced and and masculine characters like physical strength needed in things like war become less important than it was in the past. That is why historical societies respected women less than we do today. They were only good for bearing children hence some of them were gay like Greeks and Shoguns. In other words bad environment caused misogyny. share
Bearing children is not the be all end all. If straight men didn't need women for sex, the majority of them would be hanging out with their buddies. It takes both genders to procreate and straight men are more about the feminine as an external aspect of themselves. Gay guys it is more internal. The balance of masculine\feminine qualities within is more finely attuned and honed.
There would also be more males out there that many women would care to admit to, that are bisexual. If a male identifies as straight, it doesn't mean he isn't willing to engage in homosexual sex either. Society projects a safer and easier path to play the straight way.
I would argue that bearing children really is the end all be all because if it weren't then the humans would go extinct over time. Reproduction is really the end all be all of any species because if it weren't then you just lost the key driver of a species' survival.
shareI don't often place great stead in humanity. I think we try our best with what we know, but I also run by the notion that there are far too many people on the plant and it is bursting at the seams. It would also depend on how one perceives life, as just living as human as the be all end all, or is there more to it.
What we see reflected in other animal and vegetation life, is also a projection of our own lives. I take a cynical approach to humans more often than not and masculine feminine qualities as an objective, are more external, when these qualities are also within each and all of us as an internal. I know I would rather be masculine form than feminine form and appreciate my maleness.
If gay men are more misogynistic, it's because they view women with clearer vision instead of straight men who rationalize and tolerate them. There is a difference between hate and indifference; that's one thing to consider.
Seems to me that straight women are (hateful) misandrists toward gay men since they do not receive the attention and admiration that straight men give them.
And on and on..who the F8ck cares.
If gay men are more misogynistic, it's because they view women with clearer vision instead of straight men who rationalize and tolerate them.
Another theoretical mechanism that supports the hypothesis. Actually that's very similar to what I taught from the beginning, but I never explained it in those terms. Straight men see women in better light because they are attracted to them. share
well.. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek when I posted that.
Straight men see women in a different light based on their desires and needs--same as straight women see men. I don't know if it's better or not.