homosexuality as eroticized rejection.

rejection carries sexual consequences.

There are two popular strains of leftist sexology today:

1. The first is pro-sex, which sees sex as uncomplicated, easy, and unproblematic, as long as it is done consensually between adults. Sexual desire cannot be a symptom of trauma; or, all sexualities are equally traumatic with no differences.

2. The second is anti-sex, which sees sex as inherently violent, misogynistic, patriarchal, and oppressive. The anti-sex position is not an attempt to understand sex with a scientific theory, but a moralistic hysteria which demands the imprisonment of Johns, whistlers, and playas.

Pro-fat leftists claim that “you can be healthy at any size,” and pro-sex leftists claim, “you can be mentally healthy with any fetish!” Even if we exclude pedophilia, this still leaves a lot of weird and disturbing things. Is this weirdness just an arbitrary social construct, that would go away if we stopped being so judgmental, or does human sexuality have dark origins?

The pro-sex left claims that sexual fetishes appear out of thin air, or if they have causes, these causes cannot be judged as better or worse. The anti-sex left pathologizes any form of masculine or aggressive heterosexuality, while ignoring or excusing the higher rate of domestic violence among LGBTQ+ couples.

If I were to suggest that obesity is a mental illness, or that hetero-exclusion may be activated by homosocial trauma, this would be offensive and unacceptable to both the pro-sex left and the anti-sex left. Unfortunately, truth can be offensive. Since both the pro-sex and anti-sex left are either too saccharine, blithe, sensitive, or Puritanical, I must become a secret third thing, which I call DeepLeft.

When someone can’t get hard without wearing a diaper, it’s reasonable to suspect an increased likelihood of emotional disturbance. The diaper fetish isn’t the cause of emotional disturbance, so suppressing it won’t “fix” the person, but it is an indicative of larger problems.

The idea that non-evolutionarily-incentivized sexuality develops out of trauma is the premise of (the debunked, the refuted, and the ritually denounced!) Freudian psychology.

freud.

If you take a psychology class, the first thing they will tell you is that Freud is bad and wrong. This is due to the inferiority complex of psychologists, who are jealous of Freud’s very large penis, in comparison to their very small penises.

One reason to denounce Freud is that he was not always politically correct by the standards of 2025. If you want to call Freud a conservative, that’s fine. Maybe you think he would be wearing a MAGA hat, marching at January 6th, and rug-pulling crypto if he were alive today. Although, given his personal family history, and the context of 1930s Europe, I’m not sold on this.

Whichever label you want to put on Freud doesn’t matter though. If an idea is true, the political opinions of its progenitor do not negate its truth. If Freudianism is true, leftists should be able to integrate and update its ideas. Marx said some racist stuff, but that doesn’t stop people from being anti-racist Marxists.

The other reason to denounce Freud is that he was wrong about certain things, or that he made some things up. Freud made outlandish claims, some of which may not be defensible. What is admirable about him is that he was willing to take risks and defy orthodoxy, which is the basis of science. If you’re unwilling to do that, you are a conformist authoritarian engaging in the worship of received tradition. I say a lot of crazy things too, and if you dismiss everything I say due to the craziest things I have ever said, you will miss out on a lot of true things.

I am not asking you to accept everything Freud ever said about incest as a sacred dogma, but to consider the possibility of a few simple ideas:

1. People are attracted to things (eros);

2. But they also have a desire for self-sacrifice, martyrdom, and self-punishment (thanatos).

3. They have basic animal desires (id);

4. But they also have collective moral impulses in the form of shame and guilt (superego);

5. The id and superego are mediated by the conscious mind, and this mediated personality is the self-identity (ego).

6. Sexual energy can be repressed, but it reappears other ways. This is called sublimation, and it is the basis of civilization, but also hysteria.

7. Emotional trauma represents itself and attempts to resolve itself through sexual fetishes.

If you read Plato, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer on psychology and sexology, you might conclude, “hey, this Freud guy isn’t a very original thinker. He stole everything from earlier thinkers!” But if you respect those philosophers and psychologists, then Freud is a valuable popularizer of their ideas.

I defend Freud out of my personal loyalty to the man (although I am his reincarnation and we have the same spirit-soul), but to deflect the criticism that my analysis is “just Freudianism, which has already been debunked.” If my ideas are wrong, tell me why they’re wrong on the basis of their substance, not guilt by association. Make an argument.

pansexuality is natural!

Pansexuality is the default state of all living beings. In the most pansexual mating strategies, the orgy, male fish will release sperm into the water, which is then caught by the genitalia of the females arbitrarily.

It is only with a high degree of specialization and selectivity that pansexuality is restricted into monogamous heterosexuality. When a male has sex with a male, or a female has sex with a female, we could view this as a mere removal of an evolutionary restriction, and a return to a more universal state.

Bisexuality can be explained as a reduction of the complexity required for the exclusion of same-sex partners. Bisexuals aren’t adding anything new, but subtracting a negative boundary or barrier imposed by sexual selectivity. Bisexuality is a reduction of selectivity.

This theory cannot explain, however, lesbians or homosexuals who exclude and are repulsed by members of the opposite sex. In this case, a lesbian who hates male genitalia, or a male who is disgusted by female genitalia, cannot be explained by a mere “removal of boundaries.” Rather, this is a new boundary which has emerged, an introduction of new selectivity. From what source?

Beginning with the Westermarck Effect, I would like to discuss the concept of sexual repulsion and attraction from a psychological point of view to help explain why some people might become sexually repulsed by the opposite gender, despite the strong evolutionary incentive against this. Rather than seeing homosexuality as genetically determined, chemically induced, or a result of grooming or sexual assault, it can be understood as a result of homosocial rejection.

the westermarck effect.

The Westermarck Effect inhibits sexual attraction due to childhood socialization. It induces the “ick.”

There are several possible mechanisms behind the Westermarck effect:

1. Social pressure;

2. Aliosexuality (attraction to other-ness);

3. Genetics.

The genetic hypothesis implies that there are genes controlling conscious mental processes. For example:

1. Apprehend an identity (childhood friend or family member);

2. Attach a negative sexual valence to this identity;

3. Override sexual signals (physical attractiveness).

If the Westermarck Effect is genetic, this means our genes control our thoughts in a very direct and intrusive way.

In Christian dualism, the body is evil, while the spirit is good. The mind is the battlefield for the struggle between body and spirit. However, sexuality is not a bodily process, but a mental one.

Whereas other physical processes are controlled directly by the brain stem (breathing, heart beat, digestion), the mating process is entirely psychological.

Human sexuality is not sexual reproduction. Placozoa and tardigrades are simple sexually reproducing organisms, but they have no “mental” or “psychological” processes to speak of.

Sexuality is not chemical. Sexuality includes not just the act of mating, but all of the associated behaviors. Dancing; music; and even hunting are all sexual.

the sexual hunt.

Sexual behaviors parallel hunting behaviors. Prey animals, such as deer, elephants, giraffes, and cows mate using aggressive predator-like behaviors.

This implies that herbivores descend from omnivores, such that they lost their taste for flesh, but maintain the hunting instinct and sublimate it into the mating instinct. This contradicts the Christian Biblical Eden, which depicts all animals as primarily vegetarian, and only becoming carnivorous after the fall.

Scientifically, omnivorism precedes herbivorism. Simple life forms, such as placozoa, eat by a process of phagocytosis, “cell eating,” or engulfment.

This is not to say that omnivores were the first lifeforms. Instead, the first organisms survived using a process called chemosynthesis.

The Genesis account appeals to common sense. If lions and tigers eat deer and gazelles, then herbivores must chronologically precede carnivores, otherwise the carnivores would have nothing to eat. Unfortunately, this is flat-earth logic.

The scientific reality is that the transition from chemosynthesis to photosynthesis and phagocytosis means that predatory behavior precedes herbivorism.

The point of this pedantic scientific genealogy of behavior is to prove that herbivores descend from carnivores, not the other way around. Mating instincts, which develop later among sexually complex species, share neural valence with hunting and eating instincts. The engulfment of phagocytosis was not biologically sexually, but it is the origin of sexual psychology.

seek and destroy.

Sex is predatory. The object of sperm is to seek out the egg and to impregnate. The sperm locks onto a target and pursues it. It is the same spirit as the cheetah chasing the gazelle.

How does this relate to the Westermarck Effect?

The Westermarck Effect is a sexual suppressant by psychological, sociological, or ideological means. The Westermarck Effect is related to the incest taboo, but it is not determined by genetic similarity. Rather, it is determined by socialization.

In the case of the Westermarck Effect, familiarity destroys sexuality. The opposite of the Westermarck Effect is aliosexuality.

aliosexuality.

Aliosexuality means attraction to the foreign.¹ Aliosexuality is opposed by oikosexuality. “Oikos” means home, and oikosexuality is attraction to what is familiar.

Human sexuality exists in tension between aliosexuality and oikosexuality. As Freud noted, women pursue the traits of their father (the Electra complex), while men pursue the traits of their mother (the Oedipal complex).

The Elektra and Oedipal complex are colloquially referred to as “daddy” and “mommy issues.” Collectively, we could call the phenomenon of being attracted to parental traits “goneusexuality” (γονεύς meaning parent).

Traits that can be affected by goneusexuality include:

1. Level of risk-taking behavior;

2. Appearance (curvature, breast size, “dad bod”);

3. Intelligence;

4. Athletics;

5. Empathy;

6. Energy level;

7. Extroversion vs introversion.

Goneusexuality can be accentuated by parental alienation. A child who is raised by a cold, distant, or absent parent may grow up to exhibit high levels of goneusexuality.

But the reverse also occurs. Some children with dysfunctional parents grow up to exhibit high levels of aliosexuality.

homosexuality and aliosexuality.

Aliosexuality is an attraction to foreign traits. For example, a dominant man being attracted to a submissive woman; a short woman being attracted to a taller man; or interracial fetishization, such as “yellow fever.” But aliosexuality occurs not just at the physical level, but also at the psychological level.

In the case of goneusexuality, extreme parental alienation could result in higher levels of attraction to specific parental traits. For example, the daughter of a police officer may seek out violent and abusive men.² The son of a prostitute may seek out women with a Machiavellian attitude toward men.

In the case of homosexuality, why would a female be attracted to a female? Why would a male be attracted to a male? The explanation may be an inversion of goneusexuality.

There are two responses to parental disengagement: oikosexuality (goneausexuality), or aliosexuality. This is a “horseshoe” bifurcation, where two opposing sexualities stem from the same cause.

A woman who is abused by her father may become attracted to abusive men; a son abused by his mother may become attracted to abusive women. These would be examples of goneusexuality.

However, there is an alternative result: aliosexuality. In the case of aliosexuality, a daughter abused by her father may reject men entirely, and exclude men from her sexuality. Yet this rejection of men will not result in the disappearance of the sex drive. The sex drive persists, but it is sublimated, forced to transform itself or redirect its energies. A woman who rejects male sexual partners will be forced to redirect her sexual energies toward other women. A woman who hates her father may grow up to be a lesbian.

male sexual alienation.

This theory breaks down in the case of male homosexuals. Male homosexuals, stereotypically, do not hate their mothers. The stereotype is the opposite: male homosexuals love their mothers, even to a degree that could be considered inappropriate or smothering.

The culprit in male homosexuality is an aliosexual response to rejection of male sociality. If a male is rejected by other males, especially his father (via divorce, abandonment, or some abuse), this alienation may be abstracted, projected, or extended out onto “maleness” in general. This is true for the youngest son in a family, for effeminate boys, for boys who are bullied, or for boys who are rejected, abandoned, or abused by older men.

Gay men are attracted to the male body, and this is not difficult to explain in the context of bisexuals or pansexuals who have less sexual restriction. What is difficult to explain is why gay men are unattracted to women.

Gay men have extreme aliosexuality. That is, they identify psychologically with their mothers, and they are estranged from their fathers. The desire to copulate with men represents a symbolic “reunion” of father and son, resolving the built-up tension of alienation.

Gay men are attracted to maleness because they feel alienated from the concept of maleness; whereas they find femaleness repulsive via oikosexuality. Gay men have a “Westermarck Effect” for the entire female gender — they get the “ick” around women because women are too close to them, while men are distant enough to be attractive.

are lesbians alienated from their mom?

Returning to the topic of lesbianism, females who are alienated from femininity are often awkward, clumsy, broad-shouldered, tom-boys, deep voiced, or masculine. All of these traits may lead to bullying and rejection by women.

There is evidence that lesbians tend to be estranged from their mothers. Backing up these claims with research sounds simple, but it is somewhat complicated. For example, a 2022 study asked whether or not adults felt “estranged” from their parents. The term estrangement is limited and cannot capture the full scope of “alienation” between parents and children. Some children might have “close” relationships with their parents, but those “close” relationships are filled with conflict and stress.

Much of the literature around this topic fails to achieve large sample sizes and focuses mostly on the coping mechanisms that gay people use to navigate family relationships, rather than those relationships as a causal factor. This is understandable, because most researchers are motivated and funded by attempts to help improve the lives of those who are already gay, rather than determining how or why they became gay.

not mutually exclusive with genetics:

None of this is to dismiss the idea that homosexuality is genetically or hormonally influenced. It is entirely possible that the rise in homosexuality is due partly to chemical factors. It is possible that chemical or mutational load is an aggravating factor in the generation of homosexuality.

Bisexuality is exploding (socio-biological factors), while homosexuality is stagnant.

Still, it seems difficult to reduce human sexuality merely to a set of chemicals, given the frequency of oddly specific paraphilias. What genes contribute to lingerie? What genes contribute to autogynophilia, as opposed to cis-gendered homosexuality? If a “gay gene” or “gay chemical” makes boys gay, then what differentiates gay tops from gay bottoms? Why are some gays hypersexual, while others are nearly asexual?

Among bisexual women, lesbianism is decreasing, suggesting social contagion.

Additionally, there is research to suggest that while bisexuality and pansexuality are exploding (consistent with a mutational or chemical load or social contagion hypothesis), anti-hetero homosexuality is advancing at a relatively slow pace.³ This suggests that even if pansexuality is increasing as a result of biological or political trends, exclusive homosexuality has separate underlying causes.

Most of the increase in LGBTQ affiliation is bisexuality, not homosexuality. Source: americansurveycenter.org/research/generation-z-and-the-transformation-of-american-adolescence-how-gen-zs-formative-experiences-shape-its-politics-priorities-and-future/

To reduce everything to estrogen and testosterone, which are one-dimensional inputs, is not tenable given the variety and specificity of human sexuality. While hormonal and mutational load can certainly amplify or open up possibilities and potentialities for sexual deviancy, it cannot determine the ultimate and specific form. It is simple enough to assume that eating microplastics might reduce sexual selectivity and open someone up to bisexuality; but the idea that random mutations can induce new boundaries (as anti-male lesbianism, or anti-female homosexuality) seems less credible.

Hormonal and genetic factors provide degrees of freedom for sexual deviancy to be explored, but the particular expression must be mediated by psychological factors.

theater kids and homosexuality.

Theater kids, or weird kids, is a slur used to describe children who do not adapt well to social environments. Most close friendships among peers are homosocial (within the same gender). Children who fail to form close relationships with members of the same gender may seek friendships outside their gender.

For example, boys who find it difficult to form friendships with other boys may seek out friendships with girls. Similarly, girls who struggle with socialization may seek out friendships with boys. This phenomenon, in the context of gender, can be described as “heterosociality.” Heterosociality is a coping strategy which socially challenged children use to compensate for a lack of homosociality.

source: americansurveycenter.org/research/generation-z-and-the-transformation-of-american-adolescence-how-gen-zs-formative-experiences-shape-its-politics-priorities-and-future/

Stereotypically, gay men do not have straight male friends. Nardi, 1992, claims that less than 8% of gay men have a straight male best friend. Gay men have difficulty forming strong social bonds with straight men. This alienation from straight male culture has a correlation with homosexuality. There are two causal possibilities:

1. Bullying causes homosexuality:

a. Male femininity results in bullying;
b. Bullying at the hands of men results in homosocial alienation;
c. Homosocial alienation leads to homosexual attraction.

2. Homosexuality causes bullying:

a. Homosexuality causes bullying;
b. Homosexuality leads to social alienation.

These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Homosexuals are bullied because of and as a result of their sexuality, independently from their masculine or feminine traits, and independently of their social skills. However, as homosexuality reaches greater social acceptance, it seems that bullying against homosexuals should decrease. Yet homosexuals still report much higher levels of bullying. Is this due to homophobia? Or, is it because weird, bullied theater kids become homosexual?

If bullying causes homosexuality, this would explain why social disabilities, such as autism, are highly correlated with homosexuality.

The third possibility is that homosexuality and social alienation are comorbidities. High mutational or chemical load may result in autism, and homosexuality, and many other deviations from the norm.

If this were the case, however, we should expect that individuals with high mutational load should all be bisexual: their sexuality should be less selective, less specific, less discriminating. It should be hermaphroditic or pansexual. Yet exclusive homosexuals are not simply attracted to the same sex, they also actively reject the opposite sex. A repulsion for the opposite sex cannot be simply explained by hormones or genetics alone.

I hypothesize that hetero-repulsion is the result of a Super-Westermarck Effect encompassing the entire opposite gender, while fetishizing the same gender through aliosexuality. As children are bullied, they become homosocially alienated. As they go through puberty, this homosocial alienation fuels the development of an aliosexual complex. Because gays see the opposite gender as “too close,” it is “icky,” while the same gender seems foreign and “taboo” due to homosocial alienation.

Boys who are bullied by boys become alienated from maleness, and this alienation fuels sexual desire for maleness. Girls who are bullied by girls are alienated from femininity, and this alienation fuels homosexual desire for femininity.

Homosexuality is a fantasy of reconciliation. It overcomes the trauma of childhood homosocial rejection through sexual ritual. By dominating or being dominated by a member of the same sex, they are attempting to heal childhood homosocial rejection, either from their peers or their parents.

violence and homosexuality.

LGBTQ relationships have a much higher incidence of violence. This could be because homosexuals have higher rates of mental illness, and this results in more violence. However, there is another explanation.

Violence is a form of intimacy. Take, for example, the title of this 2024 study:

The Complex Interplay between BDSM and Childhood Sexual Abuse: A Form of Repetition and Dissociation or a Path Toward Processing and Healing?

Abused and traumatized people are attracted to abusive partners. Bullied and abused children blame themselves for their abuse, feel guilt, and find it cathartic to be “punished.” This is masochism. On the other hand, other victims feel a desire for revenge, manifesting as a desire to humiliate, punish, and dominate others. This is sadism.

Pedophilia, for example, is not necessarily a physical attraction to minors, but a psychological desire to dominate, humiliate, and punish. A 1992 study by Freund and Watson found that pedophiles were 10x as likely to be homosexual as the general population.⁴ If homosocial alienation is a root cause of both homosexual exclusion and pedophilia, then it would make sense to see them both as comorbidities. This should help to refute the homophobic idea that “homosexuality causes pedophilia.”

I do not mean to compare the behavior of pedophiles and homosexuals on a moral level, but to understand the underlying causes of each from a scientific point of view. Humiliation, trauma, and guilt play a significant role in sexual development. For social rejects, such as “weird kids” and “theater kids,” homosexuality may be a means of resolving a lack of homosocial alienation with aliosexuality.

Those who are unable to form close friendships with members of the same gender may, after puberty, begin to sexualize those relationships as “unobtainable.”⁵ Similarly, homosocial alienation may result in the perception of children as “unobtainable” through the lens of aliosexuality, leading to the fetish of pedophilia.

obsession, frustration, pursuit.

Imagine a socially frustrated child. Due to genetic or chemical factors, the child may have a social disability, such as Asperger’s. Or, due to other forms of abuse, the child may be traumatized and have difficulty interacting with others.

In either case, the child will quickly realize that they have difficulty making friends. This will result in a feeling of insufficiency, “not being good enough,” being a loser, a freak, a weirdo. The child has two options:

1. Reject society as immoral or unfair, leading to political radicalism (sadism);

2. Try to “fit in” even harder (masochism).

Social rejection incentivizes narratives that demonize the “majority culture.” For example, social rejects will ridicule “jocks,” “dumb blondes,” “popular girls,” and American culture at large.

But this rejection of society on a political, philosophical, or aesthetic basis does not preclude a simultaneous sense of guilt and insufficiency.

One of the common traits of social rejects is “oneitis.” Oneitis refers to the tendency to latch onto and idolize one particular friend. Socially adept children have many different options to choose from in order to fulfill social desires. However, social rejects have limited opportunities for socialization. When social rejects find someone who tolerates them, likes them, or shows them attention, they may hyperfixate on this individual in order to “latch on” and “exploit” the relationship, fearing that their supply of social approval may soon end.

To provide a metaphor: someone with plenty of food will not necessarily lick their platter clean. But a hungry person will eat every scrap and crumb and leave nothing to waste. People who are deprived of social intimacy, when they are presented with an opportunity, tend to “overcompensate” for lost opportunities by obsessing over the few options available to them, as a form of codependence. This obsessive codependence can then become sexual.

If a man finds himself unable to form friendships with men, but finds that he can attain sexual intimacy with men, he may find catharsis in homosexuality, while being repulsed by the female genitalia as symbolic of his guilt-rejection complex.

Prior to the completion of puberty, social obsession can be confused with romance and “crushes.” For example, a girl with one good friend may confuse her love for her friend with a “crush.” This confusion may begin as a misidentification of emotional attachment for sexual attachment, but as puberty progresses, this psychological obsession may fuel a genuine sexual desire. While heterosexuals maintain a clear distinction between homosocial intimacy (friendship) and sexual intimacy, the obsessive nature of social rejects fuels a conflation of the two.

As children go through puberty and begin sexual fantasies or ideation, homosocial obsession influences the development of sexual preferences.

rejection and obsession.

A social reject may externally critique society as unfair, unjust, or “dumb” as a coping mechanism for a lack of social intimacy. If a young boy has no male friends, he might begin to think, “boys are dumb. Boys are stupid. I hate boys. I hate jocks.” The hatred of jocks specifically is a jealous rage inspired by the homosocial success of jocks.

At the same time, this resentment conceals a hidden obsession with homosocial intimacy. Subconsciously, the hatred of masculinity only sublimates homosocial desire, and with the arrival of puberty, this transforms or reemerges as intense homosexual desire. The original hatred of jocks then becomes an aliosexual obsession; the desire to be penetrated by strong male athletes and bodybuilders, who represent homosocial success and approval.

female sexual collectivism.

For young girls, heterosexuality can be conceptualized as threatening, predatory, and destabilizing if it is divorced from homosocial intimacy. For females, heterosexual relationships are always mediated by homosocial desire. See Richard Hanania’s essay, Female Sexuality is Socially Constructed.

Females choose sexual partners in large part based on collective social pressure or influence. This is the mechanism behind “hypergamy.” Hypergamy describes the tendency of women to “marry up” in a social hierarchy, independent of height, strength, size, facial symmetry, and intelligence.

When a woman is attracted to a man with high social status, the subconscious drive behind this attraction is the desire to seek homosocial approval from her friends and her family. The hypergamous desire is homosocial in origin.

Women who have difficulty with homosocial intimacy may have a “bifurcated” reaction to hypergamy. On the one hand, lonely girls may become extremely hypergamous, attempting to “overcome” a lack of homosocial intimacy by pursuing a high-status man. This would be the stereotype of the “gold digger with no female friends.”

On the other hand, lonely girls might reject hypergamy entirely. When a woman eliminates hypergamy from sexual choice, she begins to seek out low-status men who are competent in other areas. For example, a homosocially deprived woman may seek out men who are physically attractive, but unemployed, derisively known as “hobosexuals.”

Homosocial deprivation is not only a function of how many “female acquaintances” a woman has, but how many deep and intimate female relationships she has. If a woman has a bad relationship with her mother, even if she has other friends, this can result in a feeling of homosocial deprivation.

social trust is sexual.

Homosociality is not a historical “constant.” As laid out in Bowling Alone, homosociality is declining over time, as people report less friendships, and a lower likelihood to have a “best friend.”

The median person is lonelier today than ever before, and this has sexual consequences.

Within any society, there will be highly socially competent people, and there will be socially incompetent people. However, most people end up in the middle. When society, in general, loses its social skills, due to dysgenic trends, pollution, the decline of religion, or loss of social trust,⁶ then more people will become homosocially deprived.

Hookup culture is a response to homosocial deprivation — it is sexual compensation for social failure. Homosexuality is a compensation for homosocial failure. As homosocial intimacy decreases, we should expect homosexual behaviors, hookup culture, and pedophilia to increase.

Homosocial alienation increases dependency on non-local sources of meaning, like politics. In further research, it will be necessary to determine the statistical relationship between a lack of friends and attraction toward political extremism. Social rejects are more likely to become communists, anarchists, Nazis, but also, homosexuals, pedophiles, and furries.

can you be offensive on the left?

Being dishonest to protect people’s feelings is politically necessary in a democracy to maintain voter coalitions. Right-wingers feel that the left lies more about sex, religion, immigration, economics, and war. As a left-winger, while I acknowledge that my side has a number of incoherent factions which cannot all be correct, I consider the net epistemic dangers of the right-wing to be greater.

While the pro-sex left can be superficial or gloss over the health risks of bottoming, I don’t think what America needs right now is a moral panic about furries, trans-people, or homosexuals. I don’t want to join forces with hysterical conservatives who believe that porn is destroying civilization. I simply want to understand human sexuality, warts and all, in the tradition of Freudian psycho-analysis.

I am not in favor of DOGE, Trump, Musk, low taxes, or decreasing the size of government, so the label of “libertarian” isn’t helpful. I am a liberal. I am in favor of people being allowed to make mistakes, and I oppose authoritarian intervention in people’s lives to “correct” them.

• If a man wants to build a roster, that’s none of my business.

• If a woman wants to write morally questionable (but ultimately harmless) erotica, that’s none of my business.

• If a man wants to bottom with men, with elevated risks of STD exposure, that’s none of my business.

I might not want to participate in those behaviors, and I might even find them gross, but unlike conservatives, I do not want the government to ban them or to ban “gay propaganda” or fund conversion therapy. It is not the job of the government to ban porn, defend marriage, or restrict abortion. It is the job of individuals and churches to define their own moral preferences, and to enforce them on the basis of voluntary free association.

Liberalism is a self-correcting system. If people make bad choices, they should be allowed to experience the full consequences of their choices without being paternalistically protected by the state. Let the gays be gay, the fats be fat, the trans be trans, and let the chips fall where they may. Stop trying to protect people from themselves.

There are exceptions to be made when a person’s dysfunctional behavior directly harms those around them. Drug addicts, barring free and infinite access to drugs, tend to do things like steal and lash out when they are experiencing withdrawal. There are some cases where state intervention can be justified, not on the grounds of protecting the addict, but on the grounds of protecting people like you and me from roaming hordes of deranged zombies.

LGBTQ people are not deranged zombies, and they are not rapists. However, there are common factors underlying both homosexuality and other sexual paraphilias which correlate the two together. This doesn’t meant that homosexuality causes pedophilia, just that the likelihood of both homosexuality and pedophilia are mutually increased by similar childhood conditions.

Banning homosexuality would not “cure” pedophilia. In fact, driving homosexuals into the closet would have no protective effect at all. If all gay men were closeted, they would still have gay sex, they would just be forced hide it, which would seem to increase the risk of potentially abusive behavior.

If you, as a parent, don’t want to bring your child to the drag queen show, that is fine. But forcing that drag queen back into the closet, so that they mimic the boring persona of a straight man, is not going to protect your child from their supposed predation. If we want to protect people from abuse, it seems like a better option to know what everyone is up to. If you want to discriminate and dissociate from others, that is your right as a conservative, but you do not have the right to tell others how to live when the only supposed harm they are doing is to themselves.

When I say that rejection causes homosexuality, the implication is that homosexuals are weird freaks, and that there is something wrong with them. Thankfully, ever since Panic! At The Disco, being a freak is now cool and ok.

Thank you for reading.

If you enjoyed this article, leave a comment with positive or constructive feedback.

If you find any typos, point them out so they can be amended.

If you have a Substack account, like and restack this post, as there is a Substack “algorithm” which will expose me to more readers.

1. The root alio- is the same root in the word “alien.”

2. The rate of domestic abuse perpetrated by police officers is disputed, see discussion here. However, it is clear that police officers are a population which is selected for by attraction to violence, risk, and authority. Such individuals are at a heightened risk to perpetrate domestic violence.

3. Please have a discount on a paid subscription for being such a good reader.

4. In a room of 100 random men, 95 men will express a preference for females, while 5 will express a preference for males.

In a room of 100 pedophile offenders, 67 men will express a preference for females, while 33 will express a preference for males.

5. The desire for intimacy as a driving force in sexual deviancy may be understood from this piece by Katherine Dee:

What's So Alluring About Incest Fic?

6. Also see: ideological chaos, polarization, and the collapse of faith in institutions.