Gays seducing weebs

It’s true, gay men are fully aware that asian GF is a pitstop on the admission of twinkhood.

Easing into it.

There is a scale.

Asian women tend to look just like twinks, kiddie face and boy hips.

Naturally, almost all they do is anal… with the woman. They go for the flat ass.

Seriously, compare twinks to the selected Asians, it’s uncanny.

It’s glaringly obvious. Even the slanted eyes look masculine, like Kiera Knightley androgynous.

Has a straight man ever wanted to bone Kiera? Before the politics.

Looks like a twink. Asian mix twink, this is important.

like this one too, boyish broad manjaw face

Important for spotting trannies too.

Asian girl or Asian boy? Note the similarity to mannish women and twinks. The presentation with eye make-up to alter the features and hair covering the manly bones? They literally cannot go outside without those two things, or they look like a different person (themselves).

Asian girl or Asian boy? Waifu or twink?

All this gender fluidity shit is big in Asia. Elliot was just a twink this whole time.

A typical line you hear upon questioning:

“I’d never rule out falling in love with a man” is classic gay but in denial.

No straight man would consider that remotely possible.

Normally they warm up to this to get inheritance shekels.

You see, the middle class warm up their relatives to the idea with Asian GF as boy-toy-looking bait.

Then when he brings home a white male later, it’s relatively a relief.

Because at least any grandkids will be white and there’s always IVF.

Disinheritance bullet dodged. Whoosh.

If you couldn’t tell by the titless wonder GFs and sagging ‘pants’.

Practically transparent kaks. Whereas straight men embody the phrase ‘guard your anus’.

If you look at Hollywood, they know this unwritten rule (much discussed) so well that no white guy with an Asian GF/wife is allowed to make it big. Think statistically how improbable that is. Their face doesn’t sell when they race mix (black is acceptable mix in HW) and they look like a pedo with a 12yo. Being a pedo, Hollywood will help. Looking like one, career suicide.

This is why beards are white, thank you for coming to my TED talk.

NHS: Cancer or condoms?

…As of April, no fewer than 25 cancer drugs that prolong life will be withdrawn by the fund.

Imagine how these cancer patients and their families must have felt this week when, following a major trial on a £12-a-day drug which helps prevent people catching HIV, they learned researchers were recommending that healthy gay men should be given it free on the NHS at a cost of almost £5,000 a year per person.

All so that the lucky recipients can have unprotected sex with less chance of catching HIV…

What kind of ethics is it to save one group of society from a disease that can be prevented by using a £1 condom, while denying cancer sufferers a longer life?….

People are not one group anymore, they’re interest groups. The cancer group don’t have the hate speech laws on their side and numerous legal counsel to protect the ‘rights’ which aren’t rights.

Paper: The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality

Click to access EF10F01.pdf

It’s research intense.

#1 People are born gay

#2 Sexual orientation can never change.

#3 Efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are harmful and unethical.

#4 Ten percent of the population is gay.

#5 Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.

#6 Homosexual conduct is not harmful to one’s physical health.

#7 Children raised by homosexuals are no different from children raised by heterosexuals, nor do they suffer harm.

#8 Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

#9 Homosexuals are seriously disadvantaged by discrimination.

#10 Homosexual relationships are just the same as heterosexual ones, except for the gender of the partners.

Number Eight surprised me the most;

Many pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual: Many people who write about the issue of pedophilia argue that most men who molest boys are merely attracted to children, not to adult males, but they do not cite any specific data to support that assertion. In fact, a study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”
Since almost thirty percent of child sexual abuse is committed by homosexual or bisexual men (one-third male-on-male abuse times 86% identifying as homosexual or bisexual), but less than 3% of American men identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, we can infer that homosexual or bisexual men are approximately ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. In addition to the actual data on elevated rates of homosexual child abuse, there is clearly a sub-culture among homosexual men that openly celebrates the idea of sexual relationships between adult men and underage boys, whether pre-pubescent or adolescent.
Here’s another paper with a good reference list, in closing:
Bisexual people manifest a dual sexual orientation, heterosexual and homosexual; everyone seems to agree on this point. Heterosexual child molesters are often married with children and so clearly manifest a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based; everyone seems to agree on this point as well. So it should not be surprising at all that the preponderance of valid evidence indicates that many male homosexual child molesters also exhibit a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based. What is surprising, perhaps, is that not everyone can agree on this point as well.
And a paper about homo/hetero paedo ratios;
This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.
If the origins of male homosexuality are indeed pathogenic, this would explain the bulk of transmission cases.

Shocker: gay men can’t keep it in their pants, HIV rates soar because it’s seen as nbd

Sure, let’s give ’em drugs, it isn’t as if that caused the problem to begin with. Don’t tell them to use condoms or stop fucking around like responsible adults with self-control, no, give ’em free drugs to allow Pn’P (Party and Play) where they deliberately raw dog/bareback because with the drugs it’s considered low/no risk in the community. (see, I know people)

This is why the stereotype.

“”We are seeing exploding epidemics,” warned Gottfried Hirnschall, who heads WHO’s HIV department.”

This is why.

“Globally, transgender “women” and injecting drug users, for instance, are around 50 times more likely than the general population to contract HIV, while sex workers have a 14-fold higher chance of getting infected, WHO said.”

Why would people use stereotypes to protect themselves against a deadly disease? That’s just transphobic! What about druggie phobic, huh? Oh, no, the feminists don’t try and spin that.

“Most countries focus the lion’s share of their attention on fighting HIV infections among the general populations, paying relatively little attention to the most high-risk groups.

This is especially true in sub-Saharan Africa, which is home to 71 percent of the some 35.3 million people worldwide living with HIV, the expert said.”

OMG, Tiffany, those scientists are, like, SO RACIST!

“Decriminalising and destigmatising these groups would greatly help bring down HIV infections among them, WHO said.”

No it won’t and no you can’t.

Homophobia study shows people subconsciously associate gay men with germs

Facetious politically-correct abhorrently biased Guardian coverage here;

“Let me explain what the researchers at Goldsmiths University found.”

How about no. You’re just a journalist with a spin to sell.

Studies’ press release here.  Also very biased, only useful section;

“We undertook four studies with a variety of different people to investigate whether this idea of contamination and prejudice applied to homosexuals as a social group. And we were shocked to find that all studies overwhelmingly demonstrated that prejudice was expressed through the desire to cleanse oneself after only an imagined contact with homosexuals.”

How is that a prejudice, wanting to be clean? I know their ‘theory’ but every healthy person wants to be clean and it’s arguably innate. Even the Guardian calls it ‘deep-rooted’.

The actual paper, behind a paywall here; abstract in full;

“The results of four studies suggest that contamination concerns involved in prejudice towards male homosexuals may be expressed in the increased need for physical cleansing after an imagined contact with a homosexual man. Participants in Study 1 completed word fragments according to the theme of cleansing, and in Study 2, they chose a cleansing wipe more often after imagining using a mobile phone of a homosexual (vs. heterosexual) man. The need for cleansing was specific to the body parts engaged in the contact [DS: almost like a pathogen phobia]. In Study 3, participants evaluated hand and mouth [sexual body parts] cleansing products as more desirable after imagining using a mobile phone of a homosexual (vs. heterosexual) man. The specific need for cleansing, but not the accessibility of cleansing related words, was more pronounced among political conservatives (Study 4). [wait, so they weren’t primed and they still had the association?] The results are discussed with reference to the behavioral immune system hypothesis, research on moral disgust, and the embodiment literature.”

They’re calling it purely cultural in cause to get it past censors, but the raw results speak for themselves to anyone who’s heard of the Germ Hypothesis covered there and here. Good evidence going forward to get other studies along the same lines funded.


The link between male sexual abuse history and homosexuality

study here behind a paywall (you know, the connection people deny has ever been researched)

Complete abstract;

“Existing cross-sectional research suggests associations between physical and sexual abuse in childhood and same-sex sexual orientation in adulthood. This study prospectively examined whether abuse and/or neglect in childhood were associated with increased likelihood of same-sex partnerships in adulthood. The sample included physically abused (N = 85), sexually abused (N = 72), and neglected (N = 429) children (ages 0–11) with documented cases during 1967–1971 who were matched with non-maltreated children (N = 415) and followed into adulthood. At approximately age 40, participants (483 women and 461 men) were asked about romantic cohabitation and sexual partners, in the context of in-person interviews covering a range of topics. Group (abuse/neglect versus control) differences were assessed with cross-tabulations and logistic regression. A total of 8% of the overall sample reported any same-sex relationship (cohabitation or sexual partners). Childhood physical abuse and neglect were not significantly associated with same-sex cohabitation or sexual partners. Individuals with documented histories of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely than controls to report ever having had same-sex sexual partners (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.16–6.80, p ≤ .05); however, only men with histories of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely than controls to report same-sex sexual partners (OR = 6.75, 95% CI = 1.53–29.86, p ≤ .01). These prospective findings provide tentative evidence of a link between childhood sexual abuse and same-sex sexual partnerships among men, although further research is needed to explore this relationship and to examine potential underlying mechanisms.”

I disagree with the sampling (inc. ambiguous “neglect”) but I haven’t seen the datasheets so I can’t be sure.

The first p-value is proof enough for a causative link to be made. 0.05 is the standard level.
The second is gold, 0.01 is definitive, as close to a certainty as social science psychology (attraction study) gets.

I highlighted male because it is interestingly a male-only connection. This is consistent with a pathogenic explanation of male homosexuality switching the response patterns of the hypothalamus from normal, reversed (female as in-utero hormone exposure instead). HBD chick here and Jayman here. Wouldn’t it be ironic if after all this complaining they weren’t born that way?

I see this probable explanation in a dispassionate, empirical way. At worst, I feel a small amount of pity for the suffering caused by this. However, if true, the gay male community should be frightened of a possible vaccine being developed. Most of the world would use one.

If you think there is no precedent for an invasive pathogen creating an immune response that changes hypothalamic function: here and here, and here’s a psychologist discussing the necessity of the brain segment for sexual attraction. Think for yourself.