Child abuse and homosexuality, microbiome, gay germ, male slutting and pedophiles

Okay I had to post this one thing, just this one thing.

Watch the lengths they’ll go to. Now it’s sure, there’s a link (under-*)reported by the victims themselves between being raped as a child and being ‘gay’ as an adult, but we can’t prove causation. We’re not, like, social scientists.

patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2009/06/05/a-major-study-of-child-abuse-and-homosexuality-revisited/

*all sexual crimes are under-reported.

As for saying there’s no link to orientation, well, technically that is true because orientation theory is Victorian bullshit picked up by Kinsey to justify University expenses on rentboys. Yeah, gay ones. Twinks, apparently.

Fact: Nothing in the definition of homosexuality (<3%) mentions age.
From the only study I can find to dare measure this, mentioned here with other data, ~30% child abusers are homosexually-oriented (quantifiably, their proven targets/victims were the same sex). That’s a whole order of magnitude at least, it’s significant. Nobody studies it. People who moan about this fact and worse, try to suppress it, are more offended by truth/facts than they are about rape. I said it.
Orientation theory means nothing without behaviour. If the facts are denied, the distinctions cannot be made. Orientation theory is unfalsifiable, identity is a self-involved delusion. It’s magical thinking to believe asserting X makes Y more likely in the outer world. If you didn’t feel attraction to A, you couldn’t sexually perform.

I love how they believe criminal lies where sexuality is involved. The pedophiles have a vested interest in getting a reduced sentence.

Like, rape isn’t about attraction but they magically got an erection.

Like, they didn’t choose the kid based on the sex, but they did choose that kid/s and none of the opposite sex. If only they cared so much about the child’s choice (always no, they are legally incapable of consent).

Are we meant to believe psychopaths when they say they’re harmless now? Why do these people (who rely on the consent of pedophiles to make their living interviewing them) lose all rationality when dealing with the consequences of other’s sexuality? It’s like they’re incapable of admitting there’s such a thing as bad sexuality. 

They sympathize with the monsters (Real Victim card). The maternal (often paternal) instinct is misdirected to the adult criminal, instead of the formerly innocent child whose life they ruined. This is why pedophiles pretend they are still mentally children (diminished responsibility, lower sentencing) but it doesn’t occur to a child to have sex, let alone rape. They pretend to be scarred and traumatized themselves, yet somehow believe in spite of that claim causing the same suffering in another is justified? GTFO.

Feminists are happy to blame men for plenty of things, but remain strangely silent on pedophilia, which explains Rotherham neatly. The stark majority of pedophiles are men, well over 90% (similar to rape rates), and I haven’t seen MRAs try to deny this fact while casually decrying (exclusively female) feminist teachers as child abusers.

omg really wtf go away no audrey

r u bein serious rn

Maths says you’re wrong. The male teachers, on solely the basis of sex, are more likely to fit the forensic profile of child abuser.

And where the admitted link between homosexuality and former abuse as a child is concerned, it’s like they all magically forget another known admitted link in behaviour called the cycle of abuse. As if pedophiles don’t recruit. What do they think half of grooming is about? One half, making the kid think they wanted rape and other half, cultish indoctrination.

It isn’t an argument that goes both ways like how they twist it in academese. A recipe bakes a cake, the cake doesn’t unbake the recipe. Nobody is saying all homosexuals are pedophiles, but by definition, if someone meets a rare (1-3%) criterion for the criminal profile of a pedophile, they are statistically more likely to be one. The same as how a drunk driver is statistically more likely to kill someone. A male fan of Celine Dion is more likely to be interested in man-meat.

Still, no one looks into the microbiome and how it informs sexual behaviour, because Gay Germ Theory is crazy, right?

Well, actually

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40092/title/Parsing-the-Penis-Microbiome/

And it’s not just the skin that envelops the male sexual organ that’s inhabited by microbes:

can you say weeping sores?

researchers continue to identify bacteria that dwell within the urogenital tract, a site once considered sterile in the absence of infection.

A short, sharp HA! in your general direction.

Some of the anaerobes commonly found on the uncircumcised penis and on occasion inside the male urogenital tract are the same species associated with bacterial vaginosis (BV) in women, said Liu, lending support to the idea that male and female sexual partners share genital microbiota.

Dare you to study homosexual partners, considering the infamous hatred of condoms.
DOUBLE FUCKING DARE YOU.

If you find no connection, I’ll do porn.

http://www.microbiomeinstitute.org/blog/2015/4/19/how-does-a-mans-seminal-microbiome-alter-a-womans-vaginal-microbiome

There is active change with every sexual partner. Proven.

“We know that it is not sterile, and some scientists think that some of the bacteria found in semen may be involved in male fertility issues.”

Mother Nature hates r-types, male sluts too. Cite Darwin now, wife-fuckers.
But why only study men? Surely the MRAs and MGTOWs want equal science funding to know how their bad lifestyle choice is making them infertile?

Kevin-Hart-Really-o rlly lies

Right guys? I mean, you can’t only want the science that makes you look good and avoid what triggers feelbads, that would be sexist. And the male version of Trigglypuff.

In fact, there is an observed connection between circumcision and homosexuality, from people who oppose it.
http://www.aboutcirc.com/gaysex.htm

Almost all of the surveyed men who were predominantly or exclusively gay were circumcised. This does not imply that circumcision tends to predispose men to homosexuality!

It literally does. If you have evidence against, go for it.

There were two factors at work here. In the Net group gay men were mostly North American, and therefore likely to be circumcised.

That can be controlled for but assuming it was because you didn’t express otherwise, the prevalence still suggests a link.

Among the Australians only half were done as infants (the same as for our sample as a whole) – but most of the others had later had to be cut, because of infections under the foreskin. Gut bacteria are the commonest cause of these infections, and anal sex (in the pre safe-sex days when this survey was done) is one way these bacteria can get under the foreskin. So it is infections, rather than preference, that accounts for the scarcity of uncircumcised gay men.

This whole paragraph.

Okay, but no big studies, you say? Nothing recent?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396416300287

Gut Microbiota Linked to Sexual Preference and HIV Infection

cracking up dawn french

I wonder why that wasn’t featured on I Fucking Love Science.

It’s about science, and fucking, and they love both those things.

Sex, hormones, and the microbiome

The microbiome — the kilogram of microbes that each of us carries around — has been shown to be involved in everything from obesity and type 2 diabetes to behaviour and sexual preferences.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/11/01/gut-bacteria-change-the-sexual-preferences-of-fruit-flies/#.V5QD4_krLZ4

Imagine taking a course of antibiotics and suddenly finding that your sexual preferences have changed.

Imagine if a specific infection reaches the brain during childhood pre-pubertal development #gaygerm

“This idea was dramatically confirmed when he gave the insects a dose of antibiotics. Immediately, their sexual bias disappeared and they were just as likely to mate with flies from either group.”

What if the lower number of gay people in modernity is due to all the antibiotics in the food?

Wouldn’t that be ironic?

sensible chuckle

You wanted ‘clean’ food, right California?

“It’s possible that the bacteria influence the levels of sex pheromones that affect the fly’s attractiveness, either by producing those chemicals themselves or stimulating the fly to do the same. That’s not too far-fetched: bacteria can alter the smells given off by many animals, and smell certainly affects sexual behaviour…. Antibiotics brought the levels of these chemicals down to similar levels.”

But remember, questioning the Pink Mafia makes you anti-science.

The science is settled TM.

For the MGTOWetc who’ll dispute any of this and continue to misuse Muh Evolution as if they were born with XYZ and choice never factors into the matter of sexual consent (scoff).

In any case, the study suggests that you can’t understand an animal’s evolution simply by considering the evolutionary pressures that act on its genome. You also have to consider the genes of the bacteria and other passengers that live inside it, which also create variations in its behaviour and affect is chances of survival. Sharon calls this the hologenome – the combined genes of a host and all the microbes it contains.

yup damon ian somerhalder vampire diaries hot duh yes uhuh

Enough for one day. Back to melting in this heatwave.

A whole other spin on Gay Germ

toxxxicporn.tumblr.com/post/81923755007/mansex-is-a-virus-one-that-uses-men-as-its-host

Do not click. Just…. don’t.

Trust me on this one.

Mansex is a virus, one that uses men as its host. Some try to resist it. Others embrace it as the source of life and meaning. We live to breed the sex-virus, to pass it on to every random anonymous dude we meet and fuck. It’s how we reproduce, man.

We shoot viral loads every time. Our jizz ain’t for making babies. Our sex spreads like wildfire, squirting out of one mans dick, shooting deep inside another, then another and another.

Join in, buddy. You’ll never look back.

wtf omg shaking shock surprise dean ah

Video: The Gay Germ Theory

I’m gonna make this really easy and simple because this guy isn’t a scientist and I’m posting this for curiosity’s sake.

The Party Line as of today (it changes so often);

Born gay/Gay gene? No. We sequenced the whole human genome (the HGP) and we didn’t find it. It isn’t there. We have entirely sequenced many genomes since and it definitely isn’t there. …Unless you argue homosexuals are not a member of homo sapiens. Ouch.
The Gay Uncle ‘hypothesis’ – oh, NOW they like evopsych! They think they can pick and choose, as if the fundamental premises of evolution (and evopsych) selectively apply to an organism according to political expediency! Except…. a fundamental tenet of evopsych is …. the organism’s successful reproduction. Which…. homosexuals are, by definition, incapable of achieving. By evopsychs own priors, it’s impossible. As a theory, which naturally comes under evopsych and requires its priors to stand up to scrutiny? Fail. It isn’t a real evopsych theory. It clashes. Straw clutching.

Now we have that unpleasantness out of the way…

What are the priors of the GG hypothesis? (the theoretical basis which would support it)
I tried to put this in a logical, coherent order as short as humanely possible;

  • the brain takes about a quarter century to fully mature in humans (birth-25yo)
  • during this time, we know humans are susceptible to immunological interference (we call this subject of study immunology, remarkably)
  • the brain is part of both the nervous system and the immune system (that last is incredibly recent)
  • invasive materials can make their way beyond the blood-brain barrier (or BBB, see clinical/neuroscience disorders for all the nasties like brain-eating amoeba, kuru and aluminium-local cell death/neurotoxicity)
  • these include pathogens (but also xenobiotics and other detritus you DO NOT WANT AT ALL)
  • humans are riddled with the things but generally if levels of the good (less harmful, or beneficial stuff) is low the immune system manages to filter it out pretty well
  • combined, our own pathogenic pattern (bacteria, viruses, fungi etc etc), unique as a fingerprint, is called the microbiome
  • it includes what is both outside the body (on the skin, hair, nails) and inside (stomach, primarily)
  • when pathogens get past the BBB, it fucks shit up (hence AT ALL ANYWHERE IN THAT PLACE)
  • like, brain damage and bizarre function and behaviours and it’s like letting a little kid drive a car
  • some pathogens exert controlling behaviours on the organism (e.g. Toxoplasma is the most famous)
  • different pathogens have different effects (duh) as do different strains (also duh)
  • these might vary between organisms based on genetics (epigenetics, controlling various switches on sections of DNA expressed or OFF/inactive)
  • evidence suggests some gut bacteria controls our food choices via the vagus nerve (look it up so you can’t blame me for bias sources)
  • that’s macroscopic, higher-level brain control (motherfuckers)
  • some damage from pathogens is permanent
  • sometimes it lasts until the immune system clears the ‘infection’
  • sometimes a pathogen lies dormant (example everyone knows from school: Herpes)
  • sometimes it is recurring, either from the environment or self-reinfection (microbiome, loved ones or home environment)
  • different strains can reoccur and each new strain cause a different consequence to the body
  • so far, so pretty obvious
  • what about sexuality?
  • in women, sexuality is considered more fluid (fucking impossible to study) and testosterone levels in utero seem a fairly accurate predictor of homosexual tendency
  • consequently, gay germ theory is applied to men, being easier to study with fewer confounds like hormone levels (which don’t really apply)
  • there is an immunological reaction from the mother against male babies in utero if they are younger brothers (antibodies from the firstborn son may cause this overactive reaction to following male siblings)
  • these younger brothers have a much higher chance of being gay as adults (look this up I’m not providing references because it’s broken down)
  • so there is alternate evidence of an immune reaction damaging (or in PC language, altering) the brains somehow with regard to sexuality and this occurs prior to birth (giving opportunity for abortion in the future, but being a weird Born this Way without Conceived this Way)
  • many gay men report being abused physically as children/minors/twinks (look stats up yourself) aka PRIOR to brain maturation
  • why is this important and relevant? STDs, a virulent class of pathogen because pathogens thrive best on mucous membranes (aka mouth, ano-genital region, the prime areas targeted by abusers)
  • the sexual contact needn’t be consensual for STDs to spread to the organism’s microbiome
  • once it’s there, you’re never rid of it, it’s a part of you
  • see the reinfection point above
  • so if it doesn’t change your developing body (or brain) at first, that doesn’t rule out damage later in life
  • if you understand all of this, it’s terrifying
  • there are some studies from the Born this Way crowd who don’t understand neuroscience when they point out with glee “look look! there are different structural brain regions between straight and gay people ZOMG!”
  • how old were they?
  • college-age, right? about 18-21? like most studies?
  • before the brain has finished developing…… (25)…… uhuh……
  • not accounting for individual differences and confounding variables and correlation/causation to imply direct sexuality function
  • but even then, IF we were to ignore those (you shouldn’t but)
  • what’s to say that was the genetic growth trajectory? (caused by genes)
  • why not epigenetics? (can be checked in theory, isn’t)
  • why not pathogenic? (cannot be checked nor ruled out, with present modelling technology)
  • why? bitch, the damage is permanent
  • and since when is a physical abnormality (medical neurological disease technically) for sexuality seen as a good thing? (dumb-arses say “we’re just like you” to “we’re NOTHING like you!”)
  • so we have some structural brain differences
  • between control and experimental groups that primarily differ by sexual orientation (ok)
  • if there is a pathogen which can make an organism not just suppress, but invert, their Darwinian impulses (survive and fuck, in that order of importance) then we MIGHT, just MIGHT have a case to answer
  • ding ding ding I already told you it
  • Toxoplasma gives rats a Death Wish, beyond mere suppression of the will to live
  • by giving them brain damage (their brains are mostly like ours)
  • and they seek out the object/group cause of infection (cats give rats the parasite so rats seek out cats, returning to the origin point)
  • relate this to the abuser facts above and the phrase “cycle of abuse” and cower in Lovecraftian horror
  • how does the brain damage work? oh nothing, just by sexual attraction mechanisms…. no biggie….
  • “That’s right, the rat is turned on. Before it’s permanently turned off.” source, cos it’s a quote
  • so you see, having structural abnormalities in the brain regions associated with sexual desire is, in fact, evidence in favour of the Gay Germ hypothesis and reinforces many many priors (above)
  • homophobia has a higher rate of inheritance than homosexuality does (born this way too?)
  • this is properly (apolitical) the aversion to, and or disgust in response to, the perception of the (un)cleanliness involved with homosexual acts, a common perception being it’s “dirty”
  • in biological terms, a high pathogenic risk factor/behaviour, especially in relation to faeces and anal “sex”
  • which they go on to avoid (and its practicing organisms) in their immediate environment, to protect against infection
  • did I mention Tox-rats get it from cat’s shit? ….from the digestive tract, out of the anus…. which is part of their microbiome…. yeah….. awkward…..
  • this type of latter environmental exposure would explain drastic switches in sexual orientation in middle age or later life (when one organism has encountered millions of pathogens)
  • which coincides with the weakened immune system
  • and neuroplasticity is a thing (when the brain is fully developed, the cells still need to replenish and this process can be damaged or cause abnormal regrowth)
  • Syphilis can reach the brain. Neurosyphilis can cause changes in behaviour. For a prior example in humans.
  • The pathways exist.
  • Herpes may cause brain swelling (aseptic encephalitis).
  • That BBB sure is impenetrable.
  • Sense of smell, as we saw with the Tox-rat, is part of the fundamental sexual desire map of humans (“limbic regions“).
  • Sense of smell is also required for desire of food (see vagus nerve point above and higher-brain control)
  • The amygdala, one of these structures, is constantly reviewing and learning new information (aka theoretically, if we could control this, we could switch homosexuality back to heterosexuality)
  • The hypothalamus, the other, controlled instinct (for food, drink, sex) and is capable of learning….. (same point about switching them back and theoretical conversion therapy applies, switches go both ways)
  • It emotes and governs reproductive behaviours too. A pathogen infecting this region or stimulating it via indirect means (say, another nerve bundle) could easily alter sexual orientation or, especially in the developing brain, to impact later, adult brain structure.
  • “men had greater activity in the amygdala and hypothalamus than did women, writes Hamann. Women showed no significant activation in these regions.” source, hence this applies mostly to men unless refined specifically to account for the many confounds of women, this included.
  • I only covered two brain sections for brevity.
  • It needn’t be an STD form of germ but considering the sexual nature of result (gay sex), those would be the first type of pathogens that require expressly ruling out. And the same pathogens might be transmitted via non-sexual means (e.g. handshake, hug, door handles, whatever).
  • It could be multiple germs. It could be the common cold for all we know. It could be something we could make a vaccine against, now wouldn’t the moral dilemma on that be fun?

I could go on but it would be at risk of repeating myself. That’s a long list.

I think you have enough to go on that this theory, which I was doubtful of myself at first hearing, has much in the way of prior evidence in support of its theoretical basis.

The questions: which pathogen and which brain cells are affected/how require a complete knowledge of the brain to rule out. They require study. If we look for them, and we don’t find them, fair enough. But given the previous findings in these relevant areas, it’s probable we will find something. And the militant gay brigade don’t want us even looking, fuck empiricism, despite how they claim not to believe in it and how we’ll definitely find nothing (then let us look aka science and ‘find nothing’, we call your bluff, if we find nothing you get to spit in our faces and say “we told you so” what’s the problem).

no do not want go away displeased

Another big question: How long can a carrier pass it on?

e.g. The few weeks/months it affects their individual brain structure? (minimal damage radius/vector scenario)
UP TO
Their entire life from the point of infection onward? (maximal)

This is a huge public health risk.

Bonus round: muh INAH3 finding. Let’s get ready to rum-ble!

wow omg likey

Instead of arguing against this bullshit, I’m going to expect a modicum of intelligence from my readers and post extracts from the book Gay Science: The Ethics of Sexual Orientation Research (2013) which discuss this. I think the words you notice and conclusions you draw based on the written priors above will enlighten you. There is also mention of INAH3 findings in transsexuals“These findings suggest that brain anatomy may play a role in gender identity”.

INAH3part1

INAH3part2

INAH3part3

INAH3part4

And the pièce de résistance?

INAH3part5grandfinale

oh damn wow ah

What IF being gay is a choice?

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/can-you-be-gay-by-choice/

 If a group rests its beliefs (in the case of creationism) or its moral standpoint (in the case of gay rights) on a set of claims which cannot be borne out by the evidence, then it risks losing its beliefs, or sacrificing its moral standpoint, when the facts can no longer be denied.

Literally all the legal framework they’ve built up so far would be torn down. The legal decisions rest on the evidence and arguments presented. When they lose the argument, the decisions are reversed.

That’s why I laughed at the “gay marriage” arguments – they believe it is indelible. Written in stone. Like the Constitution…. it cannot be changed.

Ah. Can you hear Orwell laughing?

If you deny sexual agency, you cannot consent.