Is sexual orientation a spook?

...

Why would it be a spook when it is just a name we use for specific kinds of behavior in sexual relations?

it's not a spook lot of people are biologically attracted to the opposite sex, and obviously reproductive needs that bring on said biological desire is spook-free

that being said if there's no one around...

Yes, just like gender roles and property

>implying you don't want a hung dickgirl to pound your little cuck ass

traps are disgusting, I never understood the fascination with futa porn. Then again I never understood why people found anal sex arousing either.

he's not wrong

The only problem with gay sex is AIDS

people mainly identify with three things very strongly : what they can and cant do with their genitals, what music they listen to, and anime. Sexual orientation is not a spook, it makes important opinions exist on the internet.

Traps are just crossdressing fags, a futanari is an impossible, fantasy creature. An actual fully functional hermaphrodite, something that there is no point saying whether it is straight or gay because it cannot exist.

Trannies and other weirdos are merely playing pretend.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis

Societies with clear gender roles are more humane than societies without clear gender roles.

You have to understand things from the perspective of the unwise but genius beings known as infants. As mimetic creatures, they try to mold themselves either with or against what is presented to them. A son who spends more time with a mom in a separate room will be less sane than a son who sees mother and father cohabit the same room.

If his mother practices infanticide in front of him, he will be barbaric.
If mother lives in a separate room and the father only enters to rape the mother, he will be barbaric.
If mother practices forms of incest with the son, he will be barbaric.

Gender roles have a lot to do with assuaging the anxiety of mimetic geniuses who need to know whether they are male or female. It's far less for the courtesy of adults and more to do for quelling anxiety in an infant.

I can honestly say I've never once wanted to do anything with another man.

I don't care about it in theory but I don't want some brother on the down low, if yan' sayin'.

Homosexuals built civilization while christfags destroyed it

why because all dudes are secret homos?

I'm interested in the basis of this post, I'm not even disagreeing but I would like you to explain.

You said...

>Societies with clear gender roles are more humane than societies without clear gender roles.

Then you backed it up with...

>If his mother practices infanticide in front of him, he will be barbaric.
>If mother lives in a separate room and the father only enters to rape the mother, he will be barbaric.
>If mother practices forms of incest with the son, he will be barbaric.

...which seems to be rather nasty random stuff than anything to do with gender roles, in fact marital rape is generally linked with traditional gender roles.

Nice double standard, dyke.

>in fact marital rape is generally linked with traditional gender roles.

Ha ha ha. Women in western societies have no idea what actual "marital rape" entails. Imagine being part of a primitive society and having different cultures for men and different cultures to women, to the point where women sleep in different areas than men.

>which seems to be rather nasty random stuff than anything to do with gender roles

I'm not talking about the adult conception of gender roles, I'm talking about an infant trying to piece together its own status relative to the examples presented by its upbringing.

If mom practices infanticide, she's a monster who can kill on whim and with impunity. This becomes a ready-made template for interpreting interactions with women in general.

If mom lives in a separate room, it's almost a given that the infant stays with mom and has little contact with father. And when the rape happens, he sees a template for how to treat women.

If mom diddles with her son, he sees mother as something who can have power over his penis. Another template for viewing women as monster magician.

To paraphrase someone else on this board, a primary lesson of history is "Work your own damn fields". Cognitive entities don't stop thinking because you conquered their fathers.

>Ha ha ha. Women in western societies have no idea what actual "marital rape" entails. Imagine being part of a primitive society and having different cultures for men and different cultures to women, to the point where women sleep in different areas than men.

So a clear gender role?

The rest of your reply just consisted of the same random stuff you already came out with.

>The rest of your reply just consisted of the same random stuff you already came out with.

It's not "random", it's an illustration of the most likely scenarios in societies without clear gender roles (for infants).

>So a clear gender role?

NOT FROM THE POV OF THE INFANT.

Remember, in such societies the baby stays with mother most of the time. It's a fucked up cycle where traumatized women abuse their children and traumatized men abuse their women because they saw the hideous power of women in childhood, etc.

The cohabitation of mother and father found in civilized societies is one of the most humane things done for people in those societies. Infants don't possess ideology, ideology possesses people and interprets the sum of anxiety and confusion from infanthood.

>Kinsey scale and all that.
Kinsey was a fucking perverted degenerate who liked to shove things up his dick and got his data by interviewing convicted child fuckers. The Kinsey scale, like everything else related to sexology, is bullshit that exists only to retroactively justify the sexologists own perversions (in this case homosexual tendencies on Kinsey's part).

>It's not "random", it's an illustration of the most likely scenarios in societies without clear gender roles (for infants).

You've not demonstrated that in any way, in fact when asked you used an example of even more extreme gender roles.

>NOT FROM THE POV OF THE INFANT.

Everything you have said suggests the opposite of that.

I'm sorry and I'm off to bed so I can't reply further but there is no logic behind anything you are saying.

Take something like single motherhood amongst the poor black communities in America.

What an infant sees is a mother who can transform from caring to psychotic in a heartbeat, men as temporary abusers and violaters of women, and the overall disharmony of their environment.

And then when new "brothers" and new "sisters" come in, the child views the lost attention as a personal insult.

It's one of those very fucked up cycles of viciousness enabled by welfare. I was homeless. I've seen shit you probably haven't seen and the stereotypes fail to grasp the nihilistic horror of pseudo-cultures like those.

>Everything you have said suggests the opposite of that.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN?

Infants are mimetic creatures who don't possess ideology. They mimic what they see and they feel anxiety about what they can't mimic and their templates for future interactions are molded in large part due to their interactions with family and other people.

>If mom lives in a separate room, it's almost a given that the infant stays with mom and has little contact with father.
>If mom diddles with her son, he sees mother as something who can have power over his penis. Another template for viewing women as monster magician

These are all problems caused by the nuclear family, not solved by it. Nice try, though.

Remember, infants don't have ideology. They don't even know what "gender" they are until they see enough to mimic behaviors. Hell, they don't even have a sense of scale.

And yes, I will be right 99.99% of the time that if mother and father don't cohabitate, the mother sticks with the infant.

Are you fucking me? Are you fucking trolling me?

You have a point that the lack of an extended family puts additional stress on the nuclear family formation. I'll give you that.

But the nuclear family is a fucking advancement from actual rape cultures. Combined with our lack of cousin marriage, it produces mostly sane people.

I think it is because I don't fit into any of the categories. What I mean is I would have sex and with a man but I get turned off at the idea of kissing and dating a male. Women on the other hand I could lick and kiss every part of their body no problem. I don't consider myself bisexual by the way because bisexual to me is being able to date both male and female.

>99.99%
No. And I see you didn't even try to defend your position that touching a baby's penis instantly turns him into a barbarian for life.

I don't even know where to start with this shit.
>Implying all cultures before the 20th century were inherently rape based
>Implying rape is far less common now than it was in the past
>Something about incest, what are you even trying to say?
>Implying women become less neurotic when they're property to be owned by their fathers and then husbands
>Implying children would be starved for attention in a tribal/extended family compared to a nuclear family
>Half a dozen more things here as well

psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/

>dealization of other cultures is the rule in anthropology, we found in publishing The Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology, by leaving out crucial details—as did Margaret Mead in her portrayal of the ubiquitous raping gangs of Samoa as an example of “sexual freedom” that we should emulate.10 As I discovered when I took classes with Mead at Columbia University, she routinely idealizes tribal childhood as “spoiled and pampered.”11 Most anthropologists do not just idealize childrearing, they baldly state without evidence that tribal mothers are “rarely abusive,” as when they say that children who are forced to eat every second sibling “are the favored ones who started life with no oral trauma,” and that eating one’s siblings believed to be demons “doesn’t seem to have affected their personality development.”12 Dozens more statements as bizarre as this are analyzed in the forty issues of my Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology.

CONT.

And the funny part is that the views of Boas (and consequently Mead's) were promoted after WWII by the CIA as a way of avoiding "racialist" thought. Because the Nazis had a racial ideology therefore any attempt to judge and evaluate people as being "lesser" or "more" was censored. It's a big part of why UNESCO exists to, to distribute propaganda.

The social sciences and arts (to a lesser degree) are a fucking mess because the CIA is full of professors who think of themselves as cultured and sophisticated.

CONT.

>muh conspiracy theory

It's not a conspiracy when they funneled millions of dollars to promote Pollack and De Kooning as cultural warfare against the soviets.

The 20th century was a godamn tragedy in every area except STEM.

>>Implying rape is far less common now than it was in the past

It is, thanks to pornography and thanks to sensible child rearing practices. Where rape is more common is where cultures do a shitty job of child raising, have drugs flowing in, and/or society is disrupted by constant warfare.

>Eating children is standard practice for all cultures before the 20th century.
No, it's not. I don't doubt that barbaric tribes that never made it past the stone age exist, but those are not exemplary of all societies before the advent of the nuclear family.

Before the development of modern contraception, infanticide was a norm except in societies that found other ways.

One of the engines for roman exceptionalism was existence of a plant for birth control up until 300-400 BC. Everything after that is coasting on the culture (and genetic predispositions) of people who had the freedom to control birth without making a spectacular display in front of other children and who had the freedom to invest in their society.

CONT.

And of course modern contraception has worse pitfalls than the roman plant. Taking hormones that affect behavior and sensitivity to various chemicals and medications? Yikes.

And of course steroids get demonized for being male hormones but that's a different story.

Great, so now we've come to the conclusion that lack of contraception is barbaric. Now explain to me how that has more than a vague correlation to the advent of the modern familial structure.

>Now explain to me how that has more than a vague correlation to the advent of the modern familial structure.

Infanticide is barbaric. Contraception is how you get women to stop being (as) barbaric. The ability to "plan" a family let's the male have the freedom to choose when to have a kid. Which lets the male choose a position in his socio-economic ascent to have a kid.

The formation of the particular nuclear structure isn't my ideal family formation (I like the support given by the extended family more) but it's still far more sane than UK boarding schools or the usage of wet nurses which leads to sexual confusion (infant imprints on wet nurse, not the biological mother. Freud was profoundly wrong in attributing his attraction to his Frau as a universal human condition as opposed to him imprinting onto his wet nurse).

>Infanticide is barbaric. Contraception is how you get women to stop being (as) barbaric. The ability to "plan" a family let's the male have the freedom to choose when to have a kid.
This has nothing to do with extended vs nuclear family structures.
>Which lets the male choose a position in his socio-economic ascent to have a kid.
Contraception beyond withdrawal was uncommon until the 1930s or so. It's hardly a contributing factor to the advent of the nuclear family.
>Freudian conjecture with no evidence or even reasonable justification
Okay, bro. Whatever you say.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

Freud took his particular case as a universal for mankind. How is it "no evidence" or how does it lack "reasonable justification" when the effect is seen universally amongst mammilian and bird young (to say the least)?

>This has nothing to do with extended vs nuclear family structures.

desu, the technology of the car and airplane spurred the development of that arrangement far more than contraception but contraception allowed for the stability of that arrangement for millions of people.

>Freud makes baseless assumption
>Assume that Freud was correct in all but the minor details
>Use one study from one demographic from over 200 years ago as definitive proof
Not how this works.

Also too modern to account for the nuclear family. The car reached popularity in the 1910s and air travel didn't become commonplace until after the conclusion of the second world war.

This is my favorite b8 thread.

>gender roles are needed as are mother/father households
Okay, I can agree with that.

>without them mothers are going to fuck their kids and then before you know it you've created a generation of cannibals

>>without them mothers are going to fuck their kids and then before you know it you've created a generation of cannibals

Have you seen poor single mothers and the type of kids they raise? Without a father, they emulate far more brutish types of men.