Some thoughts on female homosexuality

[Galam]

So my claim is, that Female Homosexuality seems to be a will that is oppressed by parasitic beings (normal people aka hets)?
What do you think about this?

A long time ago, I read Schopenhauer and various historical perspectives on homosexuality, especially the defamatory ones from the field of psychiatry.

I have always focused on female homosexuality because I find it more interesting. Over the years, I have also found some information about "political lesbianism."

Comming from this I think our society would look very different if human biology did not favor the cruelest parasitic will. And perhaps female homosexuality has no meaning like the whole world and life, but it is a will that would definitely lead to a healthier future if it were the only will. Because within same-sex relationships, there will be no next generation. The only way to produce the next generation of humans is through heterosexuality, whether naturally or through in vitro fertilization.

Male homosexuality lacks revolutionary character. While female homosexuality can be a double axe that would attack and destroy the existing system. But it is repeatedly oppressed and so easy because many women lack biological the will to feel love towards another woman. The majority of humans are always guided by a parasitical and competitive will.

In my life, I have seen women whom I liked, but who rejected me as ugly. Obviously, these women belong to the norm = parasite class, but if they had chosen me, it would have been more ethical overall. And in a collective situation, this would create a new system of living, working, and entertainment.

The whole existence of female homosexuality has the power to break the circle of the rich and breeding parasites in this society. But it is a biological will and bound to lesbians, just as heterosexuality and the will to abuse/lead (parasitism) are bound to the norm, so it cannot really be taught.

And it is too weak to break the circle, as we see it always being defeated by the norm who created capitalism, psychiatry/pharmacy and even by family members who kill their daughters.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm not too clear on the reasoning behind the theory. The will to be homosexual being quashed by parasitic beings? How can heterosexuality be termed 'parastic' when, as you have observed, it tends to be the norm a species needs to survive- through reproduction.

Are you suggesting that all people secretly have a desire to be homosexual? I'm not sure whether that's true. I think we are probably all on a different place on the straight to gay scale.

As to whether their true drives/ nature is being squashed by heterosexual 'norms'. Again, it depends on just how much discrimination they are subject to, I imagine. Their upbringing, culture, religion. The people they befriend and their beliefs.

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom though too. It isn't a solely human phenomenon. The theory put forward is that of maintaining social bonds, especially amongst social species. Same sex parenting has even been observed in nature.

So- perhaps there is some degree of evolutionary advantage to having some of the population of a species gay, bi or, whatever else. It clearly isn't enough to doom a species to extinction!

The irony of the human species, I would tend to argue is- we've actually done too well! There are too many of us on this planet for the resources left here. Wouldn't it be better for the species if fewer people popped out babies/ consumers/ polluters?

You're also ignoring a growing trend in antinatilism. Straight women chosing not to bring children into this shit show.

As for men and women making breeding/ partner choices on the basis of looks, women also go for wealth. Maybe men do too. Not that I particularly like the overly vain or obscenely wealthy but, if we're talking about a strong genetic line here, what would you prefer? In this day and age, wouldn't you prefer to be born to someone financially stable? Wouldn't you prefer to have the genes for good looks?

I find it interesting that you make the comment it would be more 'ethical' for women to choose you. I'd consider myself inferior breeding stock. One reason I don't want children is to spare them the struggles I went through. And, with a 50% share of my genes, chances are they will struggle.

What's the theory really? If enough poor and ugly (me included) people breed, the world will be more accomodating to them? But- it never will, so long as the rich and beautiful have all the power and, keep breeding to pass it on. All we're effectively doing is providing fresh meat wage slaves for them. Why would I want that fate for my children and my children's children? I'm so glad I've spared them that.

I think maybe I've misunderstood the whole thread. Sorry! I misunderstood maybe that you were a guy saying it was unethical that women rejected you for looks. So, are you refering to other gay women that have rejected you on the basis of appearance? I'm still fascinated though- when it comes down to ethics. Do you mean straight women should ethically choose you?

I don't think equal opportunities would work in dating necessarily though. If a high priority for a person is appearance/ physical attraction or, living comfortably/ wealth- would they be happy 'settling' for less? Would their partner feel confident in being able to keep them? Plus, I don't think you can pretend to be gay happily if you're not. And, vice versa.

The ethical side is interesting though in terms of homosexuality. Seeing as the relationship won't lead to children- unless they adopt/ surrogate/ use IVF etc. Morally speaking, in terms of it being good or detrimental to the species, will it matter which partner they choose? Obviously yes, if they do choose to raise children, but otherwise? Again though- maybe looks don't matter so much there. The child already has it's genes. But, wealth still matters. The couple need to be able to afford to care for the child. Preferably educate it.

 

[Dejected 55]

I'm not sure I understand the premise. In the patriarchy, lesbianism is pretty much supported by everyone. Men and women, gay and straight. Gay men get the short end of the stick (so to speak, sorry that joke was too easy to make...). But seriously, Straight men and Straight women are more likely to be against gay men than gay women.

Historically, men having harems left a lot of time for the majority of his harem to frolic together and support each other in the child rearing... like the polygamy in Utah, for example. There are way more examples of 1-male and a "harem" of women than there are 1-female and whatever the word for a harem of men would be for her.

I'm not saying lesbians don't get oppressed in many of the same ways as gay men do... because they surely do... but generally speaking, survey the general population and you'll find lesbians poll much higher than gay men do when you ask straight people.

Not saying it is right... but it's backed up.

Think of how most people react socially too... A man being promiscuous is seen as a good thing... a woman being promiscuous is seen as a bad thing... but that's among straight men and women. If a man is promiscuous with many women and those women have relations among themselves as well... nobody will hold that against them... but reverse that, and the woman seeing multiple men would be labeled a "slut" and those men having sex with each other on the side would be considered outcasts.