GenderCritical

MarkTwainiac

[removed]

WildApples

I thought the writer was sensitive to the plight of women and seemed to be encouraging other gay men to be more sympathetic. He noted that lesbian women inherently had different objectives from gay men, but he did not suggest that those differences were wrong or unreasonable.

The part about sex with animals as the beginning of interspecies communication and other sexual perversions was disgusting (p. 6). More and more I see why conservatives kept raising the slippery slope argument of legalizing homosexuality potentially leading to pedophilia and beastiality.

The section on children (p. 6) was sad. He acknowledged that straight men may molest young girls, but otherwise "kids can take care of themselves." Ugh. I gather that the author had sexual experiences as a kid that he considered positive and consensual, but I do not see how anyone can deny that boys can be groomed, molested, and taken advantage of just like girls. I think anyone who looks at the story of Vili Filau and Mary LeTourneau can see that he was taken advantage of by her, robbed of what remained of his childhood, and had his whole life irrevocably altered because of it. She tried to use the same argument as the author, that the kid came onto her, but if you watch interviews of them together, especially the more recent ones, you can tell that he harbors deep pain and regret about it. This idea that boys are just sex machines that cannot be molested needs to die.

KingDickThe2nd

The pro-pedo stuff hidden in the LGBT community is caused by how the LGBT community came about and about modern Western societies having a over-the-top ridiculously romantic view of ancient greco-roman society.

Greco-roman culture is considered superior in a quasi racist way in Western societies (even North Europeans who have nothing to do with it), thus anything connected to greco-roman culture is thus superior by extension.

However ancient Mediterranean culture was horrifically sexist, and worse yet it was considerably more sexist in a relative extent as well (northern Europe at the time was still sexist, but far less than Mediterranean culture). In fact, the ancient Greeks considered themselves superior to Northern Europeans because they considered extreme sexism to be a sign of culture and sophistication.

If the ancient Greeks looked down on women so much, then why did they accept homosexuality between adult men?

The answer is because they didn't.

What they had is sometimes called institutional homosexuality or age-structured homosexuality, but is more historically correctly called Pederasty (boylove). This was when a non related man mentored an adolescent boy who was roughly between the ages of 12 to 17, but where it was it was expected for the man to teach the boy practical sex education. While this was only ment to extend to mutual masturbation and dry humping (slave boys were not so lucky), it was recorded as having a romantic element to it . Individuals who preferred this type of behaviour over sex with females created the self-identification Pederast (boylover) for themselves.

The Roman view of homosexuality wasn't really that different, but they were more accepting of men who wanted to have sex with adult male slaves. Moving forward, the renaissance was slightly better, but still the elites of the time preferred Pederasty as they were inspired by the ancient Greeks, thus many of the maestros such as Leonardo da Vinci and so forth were accused of engaging in such behaviour.

Moving forward again to the Victorian era we see the rise of the Greek Love movement, which called for the return of pederasty as an institutional practice. They used the argument that such behaviour was core to the ancient Greek culture and thus success story, so therefore highly beneficial to society.

Oscar Wilde was involved in one of the organisations (Uranin poetry society) that was part of the movement, not because he was one of them, but because this was where the power and influence was. The gay rights movement was completely unorganised and powerless at this point in time in comparison.

The Pederast movement was somewhat secretly accepted in elite circles at this point in time. It only became less powerful/accepted than the early Homophile movement in the 1930's.

I mean Budweiser put an advert in an art magazine for elites called "introducing Budweiser to the gods" in 1906 that had a hypersexualised 12 year old boy representing Ganymede being clutched by an eagle representing Zeus (a symbol of Pederasty). Hell even the fact that one of the moons of Jupiter (Roman name for Zeus) is named after the catamite Ganymede shows the acceptance off this type of behaviour at the time.

It was roughly this time that Thomas man (who is considered a famous "gay" novelist) wrote a semi-autobiography (according to his wife) about the time he stalked a 11 year old Polish boy around Venice (Death in Venice). It was turned into a movie in the 1970s and the actor who played the boy now regrets being part of it because he considers it to be pedophile propaganda and that it was made for and by pedophiles. Yet movie is considered a beloved cult art movie.

So when it comes to the American gay rights movement in the 1970s, of course they were Pederasts there and yes their aim was to have sex with young boys and yes the American gay movement turned a blind eye or actively supported them.

Why?

Because just like today with the fucking stargenders, genderqueers and the other clowns, there has always been a reluctance to gatekeep, this is why NAMBLA was able to infiltrate many US gay rights organisations in the 70s, which caused the global organisations they belonged to (like ILGA) to be banned from lobbying at the UN (something that was only overturned 9 years ago). This obviously caused considerable long-term damage to LGB people because some idiots couldn't say No.

But it turns out NAMBLA had a problem with gatekeeping itself, as it started off as campaigning to change the US age of consent laws to match that of central Europe (13/14) at the time and legalise same-sex hebephilia, but morphed into calling for society to accept sex between an adult man and a 4 year old boy. This (sort of) explains how they managed to infiltrate organisations, yet have completely detestable beliefs.

Unfortunately there is a lot of history that isn't anything to do with homosexuality, but people want to feel better about themselves by having a sympathetic history, even if it isn't true.

It is too hard to disconnect this bad history and much easier to just bury it. But this will mean that pedophiles will keep on trying to infiltrate the LGBT movement as it is the path of least resistance.

It also shows how much a danger the TQ are, that they cannot or will not gatekeep themselves and will drag everyone down with them into a pit of diaper wearing pedo furry mess.