Posts by Chris Williams

So, looking at the worldmetar site,
which serves as a hub for various global statistics.

Regarding the annual global mortality rates tied to the flu:
Quick facts:
Every year, an estimated 290,000 to 650,000 people die globally due to complications from seasonal influenza (flu) viruses.
This figure translates to roughly 795 to 1,781 deaths every single day caused by the seasonal flu.
Sources and info:

Seasonal flu death estimate increases worldwide - CDC
Up to 650,000 people die of respiratory diseases linked to seasonal flu each year - World Health Organization (WHO)


As of today, the global death toll from COVID has reached approximately 109,000 people.

I suppose I have to wonder why people aren't just staying home; why they don't stop going to work, why kids are still in school, why bars remain open, or why traffic hasn't ground to a halt. Why doesn't life simply stop, making it so you can only step outside to walk the dog? It seems strange when you consider that the elderly population—those already struggling with comorbidities, cancer, or other severe illnesses—die from the flu, sometimes even at six times the rate of COVID this year... I'm just asking.

...And one more thing... perhaps it’s somewhat obvious why an emergency press conference is being held by the crisis management team in > because a nurse and an elderly woman in a nursing home in Ploče tested positive for the coronavirus. This isn't about being hyperbolic; it feels more like collective madness.

hiddenpuma75 said:there's also

My general statement to everyone—specifically those who think I'm either perfectly sane or completely lost 😬:

folks!...

it’s crystal clear to me that something is going on.
IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME THAT IT ISN'T GOOD!
I'm following all the guidelines, trying to curb the exponential growth of all these viruses and even the Jungian shadow within myself 😬

I CAN SEE THAT SO MANY PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING!

But please, try to understand both yourselves and me.

I really think things are being blown out of proportion!

WHAT WE ARE BEING FED IS OVERSTATED AND ONE-SIDED. THERE ARE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OUT THERE, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COUNTRIES, AND VARYING EXPERT OPINIONS
Sweden and Belarus aren't under quarantine!

Maybe I'm being a bit too optimistic myself, but please don't think for a second that I'm just messing around or ignoring the situation.

MY ULTIMATE WEAPON IN ALL OF THIS is whatever Tradition dictates (and yes, I mean Tradition with a capital T!)

what matters isn't actually what is happening, but rather the attitude we take toward it 😉

That's what spirituality is all about, casualtiger2—it's not some flashy, superficial show.
Spirituality means believing in spiritual principles and in Tradition, and actually living them out in practice!

I suspect you can't truly wrap your heads around who I am, and I can't quite reach you either (since you're on "the other side"
and that leads to these misunderstandings 👋

But accusing others of being a danger simply because they hold a different opinion? That's just terrible. 😲

Well done, hiddenpuma75!!! An excellent post.....

One should never, ever switch off their own critical thinking or blindly believe anyone or anything—especially now, when our rights to movement and work have been stripped away, leaving us confined to our homes where we are expected to follow the lead of the Berošev administration, the Božinović leadership, and the head of Alemka. We are told to trust politicians and science without question, to remain obedient as if they alone know what they are doing... When that same logic is applied to spirituality, it is nothing more than dogma.

Personally, I feel a certain gag reflex at the mere mention of categories like "guru," "priest," "teacher," or "savior." When I see them surrounded by a crowd of devoted followers who mimic their every move—dressing like them or repeating whatever "wisdom" that hack spewed during some lecture—I feel an impulse to start shouting discipline and telling everyone to just go home; honestly, screw the followers, the cults, and those spiritual teachings, especially when that little magician from Oza is just as lost as you are.

You have books in your own homes; read them and actually practice something. Try applying even two or three things. Be your own light, rather than coming here to worship some idiot who turns himself into a circus act and turns you all into fools.

I suppose this reaction exists because, in previous stages of my life, I respected them immensely, so now the pendulum has swung just as far in the opposite direction. Now, perhaps unintentionally and more instinctively, on a deep, visceral level, I feel like vomiting whenever I hear someone praising them with profound reverence as if they were superhuman beings who possess some special insight into the unknown.

It seems there is something in human nature that craves authority, a force outside oneself, a magical savior, a powerful father, a nurturing mother, or even a benevolent Santa Claus. It’s something infantile, weak, and foolish that prevents people from discovering their own strength, leading them instead to hand it over to some self-proclaimed savior of souls who rambles on about what others should do (for themselves, and of course, for him) just so they can be exactly like him.

Andrew White6 said:Please, let's not go there. It’s truly a tragedy when someone with such a vast breadth of knowledge loses the drive to explore subjects they clearly understand so deeply. That said, having a mental block isn't a valid excuse for spreading misinformation. The author isn't a member or even a follower of CoS, nor is that the sole focus of the book. CoS is merely addressed in one specific chapter as part of a larger look at various Left Hand Path practices.

It seems there is a certain amount of hostility and malice directed at the interlocutor instead of actually addressing the topic at hand. Fine, I am just taking notes—though perhaps the depth of knowledge on this subject is questionable.

Even so, mental blocks shouldn't serve as an excuse for spreading misinformation. The author isn't a member or even a follower of CoS, nor is that the sole focus of his book. CoS is merely addressed in a single chapter as one of many trends within the wider spectrum of LHP practices.

I never even suggested he was a satanist, yet now I am being told he is simply a compiler of data regarding occult and dark spiritual practices.

I suppose I don't quite grasp what appealed to you, especially since the introduction makes the completely baseless claim that satanic and other obscure practices represent a subjective path while all others remain objective. It feels somewhat like an intellectual construct designed to imply the author has information on everything regarding the topic, yet possesses no actual spiritual insight whatsoever.

Joseph Bailey41 said:🙂

I used to be pretty convinced I was on the Left-Hand Path. Back when I first started poking around spirituality in my early twenties, everything felt split: you had the Sunday service and Transcendental Meditation types on the right, and then there was all this nonsense on the left. Since I didn't know anyone actually practicing it, I spent my time online trying to swap stories with those weirdo Satanic-Telepathic types. I learned how to do the LBPR, called upon Lilith and Eris (though never at the same time 🤣), but eventually, I just got fed up and drifted back toward atheistic materialism. A few years ago, that lost its appeal too, so I moved into Shaktism, shamanism, divination, and finally settled into a somewhat twisted version of Northern tradition shamanism. Looking back now, it feels like I was on the LHP the whole time; I just thought I was a fraud because I never actually performed any ritualistic defilement. 🤣

hahahaha....😁😁😁

I suspect the OP and finger-clipper 2 might have had a different definition of "left-right" than I do. To me, it feels more like yin and yang—you’re either a lover or a warrior.

In that spirit, I prefer kissing over fighting. Though, given how intensely I've been studying Advaita for years, using tools and weapons isn't entirely foreign to me. All things considered, I find myself on the Shakti LHP now, mixing in certain meditations,

When it comes to the rituals and the ridiculous altar paraphernalia used by Aleister Crowley and his colleagues in the industry, it honestly strikes me as being on the level of: "I have to wash my hands three times in a row and flick the light switch six times so nothing terrible happens." Just pure OCD, I guess...

Regarding the development of abilities that fall outside the scope of ordinary experience, I wouldn't say I believe in them so much as I know they happen; such things tend to occur spontaneously as a byproduct of meditation.

Consciousness expands. Grass grows. Spring turns the hills and valleys green. These are all processes of Mother Nature; if a garden is tended, watered, weeded, fertilized, and loved, it will always pleasantly surprise you with the growth of something beautiful to look at. Sometimes it's edible. Sometimes it's a perennial, and sometimes it's those aquatic plants that color your inner landscape for a season and then vanish....

If you catch my drift, honey...

I know you do.... 🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:Wasn't that tacky, trashy cover enough to grab your attention? Or maybe those perfectly manicured nails? 😲

Your soul is going to pay for this. ☕

If we go by that logic—where a man isn't a man without a mustache, much like a preacher isn't a preacher without his vestments, inverted crosses, and ritualistic ceremonies...

🤣🤣🤣

we could call this whole Egyptian-Tibetan-Kabbalistic collective OCD "the left path," and perhaps we should try to have a serious discussion, assuming analysts aren't just talking nonsense and pretending their uncrowned king, that great beast and powerful mage Aleister Crowley, wasn't actually
just a clown who, despite any supposed occult power, died broke and a heroin addict...

Joseph Bailey41 said:Put it that way... 👍

I'm still having a hard time deciding. The first option sounds beautiful, but I really love the part in **bold** from the second one. 😳

You know that one by Nikola Tesla:

"If you want to uncover the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration."

The first option touches on that concept—the idea that matter is perhaps nothing more than "spirit" (or consciousness, if you prefer) vibrating at a low, narrow frequency. I guess the point is to raise one's own frequencies through practice, while acknowledging that there is an immanent pulsing of shakti through ever-increasing bliss present in every stage, never truly separate from us.

The second option feels like delaying self-realization until some perfect moment where all conditions are met. One might spend their whole life preparing for an event that may never actually occur, and I suppose it is questionable whether such preparation is even a prerequisite for anything.

darkraven said:From here:



That bolded part—you know, the bit about how "the path of the left hand is essentially the path of non-identity and non-unity with the objective universe"—is a straight-up, word-for-word rip-off from this book. Seriously, it's practically the introduction to the whole topic.

https://nationalsatanist.files.wordp..._hand_path.pdf

If anyone thinks I'm just messing around, go ahead and read the first chapter yourselves.

We're looking at a potential case of blatant plagiarism here, or at the very least, a massive lack of creativity and pure laziness.

Thanks for the heads-up. 🙂

I don't really have the energy to engage with anything that has the Church of Satan in the title, whether it's their take on spiritual left versus right, who thinks Lucifer is actually good, or if hoarding wealth is cool and inequality is just natural...

Steven Stewart3 said:I'm not really a fan of writing in generalizations like "this is the hardest" or "this is the most common," etc.
But in my opinion—and I really want to emphasize this—there is no harder path than Jnana Yoga. It’s that classic paradox: it’s the most grueling way to go, but also the fastest. On this path, you’re stripped of everything. You face solitude, zero friends, none of that easygoing small talk over a latte, no traveling, no healthy social life... even your career (even though you might have all the right credentials, the drive, and the ambition) feels totally different.
You end up with a razor-sharp intellect because you’ve sacrificed so much to get there—though usually, it’s not even conscious at first. You don't realize what's coming until you finally pick up a book on yoga and it all clicks.
By then, you’ve been through the wringer in life. You’ve been tested so many times that everything a "normal" person finds attractive or pleasurable starts to feel hollow. It’s not that those things aren't enjoyable, it's just that you finally see exactly where they lead. To get there, you have to grind through intense concentration, deep meditation, diving into astrology, seeking out mentors, working with seasoned spiritual teachers, and all that good stuff.
There are tons of little nuances too, like how you frame your thoughts—for example, avoiding certain phrases or mental loops.

People on the other side are out there partying, drinking, and living it up, so their path feels way easier 😁. But obviously, that's a dangerous road to walk.

That simply isn't true. It isn't a dangerous path, nor is it some route defined by hedonism and lust. I suspect a few Western fools who have rebranded their own lack of restraint as sacred tantra are nothing more than frauds.

Andrew White6 said:We can think of the totality of existence—everything known and everything still waiting to be discovered—as being composed of two distinct parts: the objective universe and the subjective universe.

The objective universe represents the natural order, the fundamental laws that govern our world. It is essentially a combination of mechanical and organic systems ruled by predictable patterns. You could call this objective reality "Nature," or even "God" within the context of Judeo-Christian traditions. This is because both hard sciences and orthodox theology operate on a similar premise: that the laws governing the objective universe can either be understood through rational measurement and description, or grasped through "divine revelation." While theologians would likely push back and insist on a sharp distinction between the "Creator" and the "creation," a closer look suggests that what mainstream religions call "God" is actually functionally identical to what they call "creation"—that is, the natural, organic, and mechanical laws of the cosmos itself.

On the other hand, the subjective universe is the "world" experienced by every sentient being. There are as many subjective universes as there are conscious beings, each acting as an individual manifestation of awareness within the greater whole. Every perception we have of the objective universe is merely indirect information, because that data must first pass through the filter of the subjective universe. Interestingly, the subjective realm doesn't seem bound by the same rigid mechanical or organic laws that govern the objective side. This is the primary dividing line between the two. The subjective universe possesses the capacity for "unnatural" action; it isn't strictly confined to the three dimensions and five senses that define the physical world. It’s also important to clarify that this distinction isn't about "right versus wrong" or "accuracy versus inaccuracy," as people often imply in casual conversation. In fact, the subjective universe is capable of far more precise and diverse operations than the objective one—just look at how you are currently reading and processing this text using the unique faculties of your own subjective mind. To put it in simple grammatical terms: you, the reader, are the subject, and the text you are consuming is the object.

Because the subjective universe isn't tethered to the laws of nature, it holds a massive spectrum of possibilities, ranging from near-perfect precision to total illusion. At the very heart of this "unnatural" subjective realm lies human consciousness—the soul, or the "I." We see evidence of this non-natural aspect of the soul in humanity's innate drive to impose artificial structures upon the objective world. Whether it’s building the Pyramids, composing poetry, or establishing complex political institutions, we are constantly creating things that are, by definition, set apart from the natural world. Animals, even those with highly sophisticated social structures, are entirely bound by their biology and the dictates of nature. A wolf pack's social order remains fundamentally the same whether it exists in the forests of Maine or somewhere else entirely, thousands of years ago or today. But you will never find two human institutions that are perfectly identical. That is because anything birthed by the subjective universe—whether by an individual or a collective—is defined by variability. As far as we know, humans are the only species with this characteristic.

This brings us to the central question: how should a conscious, free soul interact with the objective universe?

The "Right-Hand Path" approach boils down to a single idea: the subjective universe must harmonize itself with the totality of the objective universe, viewed as God or Nature. From this perspective, humanity's task is to seek out the knowledge of these laws and submit to them, seeking unity or an alliance with the objective order. The Right-Hand Path is a journey toward merging with universal reality. When this union is fully realized, the individual "ego" is surrendered, and the person becomes one with the divine or cosmic order. In this state of heaven—or the state of being/non-being found in Nirvana—the ego ceases to exist, which is precisely the ultimate goal of all mainstream Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist orthodoxies.

The "left-hand path" represents a heterodox journey. It views the state of humanity through a very specific lens—one that acknowledges the deep-seated, fundamental hunger within every human being to be a free, empowered, and independent agent within their own reality. To those on this path, both the pleasures and the pains that come with being an independent entity are embraced as hallmarks of the highest and most noble human destiny, especially since such self-governing existence has historically been viewed as something divine.

Just as most people spend their ordinary, day-to-day lives chasing things that will grant them more knowledge, power, freedom, autonomy, and social standing within their world, those who practice the spiritual "left-hand path" logically extend those same ambitions to their inner selves. They do this without giving a second thought to the warnings from the "right-hand path," which labels such spiritual behavior as "evil" and insists that one should instead follow "the plan" (set by God and nature) to become a well-adjusted, conforming member of the collective.

In essence, the left-hand path is a path of inequality and non-conformity with the objective universe. It is about isolating consciousness within the objective cosmos, creating a state of self-imposed psychological solitude where the practitioner can refine their soul or psyche to more perfected levels. In this framework, the objective universe is forced to harmonize with the individual's will, rather than the other way around. While the right-hand path is theocentric (or at least focused on an external authority), the left-hand path is "psyche-centric"—it is ego-centric, centered entirely on the soul. Although definitions of the self, ego, or soul may vary within this tradition, the individual remains the undisputed epicenter. The ultimate goal is the eternal separation of the individual's intelligence from the objective universe, achieving a state of immortal, independent self-awareness that exists parallel to the cosmos and interacts with it only by its own volition.

I am not entirely sure where you gathered these ideas, or whether you have adopted them because they resonated logically after reading some specific text, or if you arrived at them through actual experiential practice.

I speak to you as someone who has tested both paths, and ultimately chose the left, finding it to be a simple, natural, and gentle route where it doesn't really matter where you started, because you are always home.

No spiritual path is truly objective.

Every spiritual experience is subjective; every practice occurs internally and begins with us—from the one thing we actually know (ourselves)—on a path where each person walks alone, where there is absolutely no one and nothing else except the single consciousness in which everything apparent is mirrored: OURS.

It is always this way, regardless of whether one seeks the immanent within matter (where everything is "God") or a transcendental "God" as the hidden primary mover of all things.

In my view, everything is actually the opposite of what you stated.

Seeking the immanent God is the left path—the path of the lover, the path of pulsating Shakti that touches us like electricity and casts us into bliss through all that exists; it is, for instance, the path of a magnificent Kashmiri Shaivism or Sufism.

...whereas seeking the transcendental, from which the apparent emerges, is the right path; it is the warrior's path, the path of yoga through austerity, renunciation, and meditation—a constant "neti neti" process of discarding until reality is stripped bare and dissolves into its own unreality, leaving only that which is within us: that which is always the same, unborn, uncreated, and primary, untouched by the illusion of this dreamlike life in this 3D world that has struck us.

Douglas Hayes2 said:Obviously, nobody is happy all the time, just like nobody stays healthy indefinitely. Illness serves as an indicator of a physical (or spiritual) imbalance. In the same way, a lack of happiness indicates an underlying issue—some sort of misalignment with oneself, one's own needs, or the world at large.

It seems right that moods fluctuate, because happiness acts as a signal, showing whether you're on the right track during life's transitions. You can't pin happiness down, even if you tried to freeze a happy period of your life in place. Trying to fixate things isn't really the path to fulfillment. 🙂

It isn’t about career stability or money. But then again, I suppose it isn't about health, children, or love either—not being loved or having someone to love. Nothing really guarantees that a person will be happy, let alone consistently so.

I suppose you can find plenty of wealthy, healthy individuals surrounded by large, loving families who still end up miserable, morose, or deeply depressed. It seems that just as money isn't a guarantee of happiness, nothing else really is either.

I suppose there is something inherently tragic about people who spend their entire lives chasing that particular sensation.

I suppose one could argue that luck and misfortune are merely two sides of the same coin.

I suppose you can't just go around collecting heads without making sure you pick up the letters as well.

I suppose it might be more important for a person to achieve those refined mental states—things like true tranquility, inner peace, and psychological equilibrium. It’s perhaps about developing the capacity to avoid excessive emotional volatility, where you don't necessarily fight against an emotion when it hits, but rather find a way to return to balance quickly.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Happiness isn't merely an emotional state, and treating it as such is a fundamental error—a complete misdirection of thought. People frequently mistake a sense of momentum for true happiness. In reality, happiness is a process. If you are fortunate enough to grasp this distinction, you will find yourself experiencing both the highs and the lows with equal clarity. One cannot truly expect happiness, for once expectation enters the equation, the essence of the thing vanishes. I believe Salinger articulated this quite plainly in Franny and Zoe, if my memory serves me.
However, one can certainly harbor the hope that fortune might favor them, provided they have the courage to remain authentic...

As for wealth, you can purchase happiness for as long as people insist that money isn't a magic wand. The only real variable is the caliber of the experience you are buying...

I suppose I don't quite follow how happiness is a process. A process of what, exactly?

Douglas Hayes2 said:I suppose happiness is about as overrated as breathing. I don't see much point in philosophizing about respiration; you just breathe and move on with your life. However, if you happen to be living or working in an incredibly suffocating environment where you're actually gasping for air, then suddenly you start thinking quite a bit about breathing and fresh air.

It’s the same deal with happiness. It shouldn't be a goal; happiness is just a baseline state. But if you're lacking it, it tends to consume your focus. It's similar to health. You only really start obsessing over it when it's missing. I guess you can't really be "happier" than a standard level of contentment, just like you can't be "healthier" than simply being healthy.

Who exactly exists in a "normal" state within a single, unchanging emotional mood?

Even children, if we were to use their innocence as some kind of benchmark, aren't perpetually happy.

Moods are always in flux, I think.

Not to mention that the idea of a "normal" state seems questionable at best.

Kant:

"The notion of happiness is so nebulous that although every man wishes to attain it, yet he can never convey accurately and distinctly what it is that he really wishes and wills "

Happiness is overrated, I suppose.

Because it is so overvalued, people tend to assume that happiness is the ultimate goal of life.

In its own right, happiness—much like any other fleeting emotional state—merely arrives and then departs.

I suspect that a life dedicated to the pursuit of being more or less happy at all times leads directly toward depression. Consumerist society is essentially built upon this infantile, self-indulgent need to bypass suffering and maintain a constant state of bliss through whatever we can buy and consume.

Most of our misery stems from that very impulse.

Furthermore, placing an emotion within a market context and attempting to quantify its worth—suggesting, for instance, that roughly $1667 per American household is sufficient to reach a ceiling of happiness beyond which nothing improves—seems highly questionable to me.

Jacob Miller4 said:Everything has resurfaced here again...
First off, let me be clear: I couldn't care less about the opinions of homophobes regarding homosexuals, trans people, or even the best way to raise earthworms in California. I realize psychology spends a lot of time dissecting these phenomena, but frankly, I’m not interested, and there are plenty of other threads on this forum dedicated to that.
Furthermore, I don't care why most people aren't sexually attracted to trans individuals. What actually interests me is that relatively narrow slice of the heterosexual population that—despite their orientation—does feel attraction toward trans people. As the studies linked above by Eugene show, and contrary to certain intuitive conservative views, it’s a mistake to tie attraction to trans people to homosexuality because: a) a homosexual person prefers someone of the same sex and has no specific reason to be more attracted to trans people than anyone else. Reducing the whole thing down to just penises and vaginas seems like a massive oversimplification to me. And b) research clearly demonstrates that attraction to trans people isn't easily linked to homosexuality.

Donna White50 is over here trying (in her own Radical way) to attribute this phenomenon to a pornography addiction that demands a slide into perversion, but I think that’s just a biased take. While part of the interest in non-standard sexualities might be explained that way, it certainly doesn't cover everything, let alone the majority. Older studies from about forty years ago show similar results to current ones. To repeat myself: men see a woman with a penis, not a man on hormones and plastic surgery, and most of this interest comes from hetero people.

Here is a relatively recent article for those who actually enjoy reading:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...eedAccess=true

As for this off-topic debate you're burying this thread with ( 🙂 ) regarding the percentage of the homosexual population, we need to distinguish between those who identify as homosexual in surveys, those who have had sexual encounters with someone of the same sex, and those who feel sexual arousal when exposed to sexual acts by someone of the same sex. It’s as clear as day, and this definitely isn't the place for it. There are homosexuals and people attracted to the same sex who won't identify as homosexual, just as there are people who have had sex with the same sex but aren't homosexual. Please move this discussion to a different thread. 👍

In the entire United States, there might only be a handful of trans people in any given area.

You have a better chance of spotting a deer in your backyard tonight than actually running into someone trans in America and even realizing it—let alone contemplating sex.

Unless, of course, you’re just curious about who’s watching trans adult content. In that case, maybe this thread and poll belong on a different site entirely.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Black KZB. 😬

I really like you, 🙂

I guess I wonder what KZB actually is.

Donna White50 said:Those stats are completely off. The LGBT population in the USA is actually around 4.1% of the total population.
Also, I have no idea where you got that bit about monkeys, because it has nothing to do with having a healthy brain. Homosexuality is observed in many animal species, but it isn't a rule of behavior—it's an exception. Bisexuality happens more often in certain species that enjoy sex beyond just reproduction, but again, it's not a standard rule, especially not applied to the human race.
The rise in people claiming to be "curious" is just a trend of forcing human sexuality into new shapes—an exaggeration of diversity driven by interest groups, the LGBT community, the media, and of course, the porn industry, which probably thanks them for the business.
Pornography isn't real life, and since prostitution is one of the oldest trades in the world, I don't see a problem with people getting paid for their acting services in that sense. My issue is when this stuff is served up to young people as if it's totally normal and acceptable.
I remember vividly consuming pornographic material when I was only 7 or 8 years old. I know how that affected me. I remember how hard it used to be to even stumble upon a picture of breasts or genitals in the media, but today? Not at all. Society is so over-sexualized to the point where it's become a global sickness that we aren't even aware of.
You only have to look at the comments on this forum regarding a girl who's 18 and has never even kissed anyone, let alone had sex or an orgasm, or had a boyfriend... and you'll see it clearly. That's all there is to our "tolerance"—it's only called tolerance as long as it serves someone's interests, otherwise, it's just thrown out the window...

Who’s actually pushing this whole gender ideology thing? Who's out there advocating for the right to basically any kind of sexual expression imaginable—aside from pedophilia, which is obviously a crime, though honestly, I can't help but wonder why we even bother when it's been part of human history since the beginning of time🤦—and who's promoting BDSM, which at its core is just another type of paraphilia... seriously, do you even watch the news, flip through a paper, or spend any time online? Or do I really need to start dropping links for you tomorrow...

It seems like Galup is lying, yet Donna White50 from the American forums apparently knows exactly how things stand.

I also have no idea where you got that bit about monkeys; it has nothing to do with healthy brain function. Homosexuality has been observed in many animal species, but it isn't a standard behavioral rule—it’s an exception. Bisexuality occurs more frequently in certain species that enjoy sex beyond just reproduction, but again, it’s not a rule, and it certainly isn't universally applicable to the human race.

Where did I get it? It's common knowledge.

The rise in people being "curious" is a trend that's essentially raping human sexuality—an overexaggeration of diversity driven by interest groups, the LGBT community, the media, and of course, the pornography you mentioned, which they should probably be grateful for.
Pornography has nothing to do with real life, and since prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world, I don't see an issue with people charging for their acting services in that context. My issue lies in the fact that this is served up to young people as if it were accessible, normal, and acceptable.

I don't know, Donna White50, but I can't continue this conversation with you because I find everything you say to be incredibly hypocritical.

You condemn someone for being gay or transgender and openly declaring their identity, yet at the same time, here you casually talk about your BDSM fetishes with someone providing a service... basically a prostitute.

Who do you think you are to lecture me? You are Kinky, and you're open about it....

You would protect your children from someone who is gay or trans, but if you found your kid at home with a closet full of chains, whips, latex, and whatever other gear they use—I don't even know what kind of tools you employ—I wonder how you'd explain to them that it's perfectly fine, that it's lovely, and that Dad likes to tie people up in the basement. Or perhaps explain it to someone providing that service to him.

If it weren't for the freedoms brought by liberalism, you wouldn't be able to tell strangers on the internet how much you care about this stuff.

So, if liberalism gave you that freedom, why do you oppose the rights of a transgender boy who was born that way, whose brain is wired such that he puts on a dress and says he is a woman on the inside?

Joseph Bailey41 said:What’s with all the sudden influx of pornography? We're supposed to be having a moral discussion here. 🧐

🤣

Are you really directing that at me? I suppose I was merely suggesting that certain things are simply natural, perhaps even divinely ordained, and they just are; my primary point is regarding the basis of condemnation... and what the author intended to convey. I only mentioned the pornography en passant because others had already brought it up. 🤷

Donna White50 said:What do humans and monkeys have to do with this? It sounds like you just picked the species that fits your narrative best...🤦

It’s not even about homophobia because the LGBT community has guaranteed rights here in the US. Sure, in some pockets of America, people still get worked up if they hear someone is gay, but most of the population accepts people with those orientations without any issue. I hang out with a few of them myself and I don't have any prejudices. However, I *am* against the public promotion of that kind of sexuality as being "cool" or "trendy," or using the media to present LGBT people as role models for kids. I also don't like how young people are exposed to porn without any limits—including all sorts of paraphilias—while simultaneously being told it’s all perfectly fine and that everyone has the right to enjoy their sexuality no matter what, including those extreme kinks...
Pornography has drifted so far away from those cheesy movies from the 70s and 80s. Now, scenes are basically rape simulations, or they're mostly group stuff, anal, rough sex, bukkake, BDSM, trans content, and endless variations of that. Honestly, all these niche categories are mostly filmed for hardcore porn addicts who can't get high enough off the standard stuff anymore. Those trans categories are mostly watched by straight men who have gone way too far down the rabbit hole of addiction, and that kind of exposure does irreparable damage to their sexual health.

When it comes to kids, I’m totally against pushing things like boys wearing skirts—you know, all that messaging about how being gay is "cool," giving them LGBTQ+ figures as role models, or just this general push to feminize boys as part of some woke agenda. Kids are incredibly easy to influence, and they just soak up whatever is served to them without questioning it...

Look, nobody is out here discriminating against being gay, but why does it feel like it's constantly being shoved down everyone's throats through the media and the school system? Why does a small group—maybe 5 or 10% of the population—get to force their specific worldview on everyone else, leaving the rest of us to just blindly accept it regardless of how it affects how kids learn and act..?

One really should consider the facts here—chimpanzees sit at the peak of the evolutionary hierarchy within the primate lineage, immediately preceding the genus Homo. Given that we share approximately 98 percent of our DNA with them, they are arguably our closest biological relatives.

If we accept that animals engage in sexual behavior for pleasure rather than just for procreation—including instances of same-sex pairings among both males and females—then I suppose that suggests something significant. It would imply that homosexuality is a natural occurrence within the animal kingdom; and if it is indeed natural for them, maybe it is also natural for us. Therefore, one could argue that when a person is homosexual, they were simply born that way, rather than being shaped by social pressures or external circumstances.

I suppose there is a fundamental necessity to distinguish between what is truly natural and what constitutes pure perversion.

I suppose it isn’t really about homophobia, since the LGBTQ+ community has guaranteed rights here in the States. While I guess some people in certain parts of America might still bristle at the mention of someone being gay, the vast majority of the population seems to accept those orientations without much fuss. I personally have several friends in that community and I don't hold any prejudices against them. However, I find myself opposed to the way this kind of sexuality is being pushed as something trendy or "cool," especially when the media presents LGBTQ+ individuals as role models for the youth. It feels like young people are being exposed to pornography without any meaningful boundaries—including all sorts of modern paraphilias—all while being told that everything is perfectly fine and that everyone has the right to indulge in any sexual expression they choose, regardless of whether it involves paraphilias or not.

What exactly do you mean when you suggest that this kind of sexuality is being openly promoted as something popular and cool?
I suppose one might wonder exactly which groups are involved here, who they are, and what specific methods they use to push their agenda regarding LGBT identity.

Regarding the issue of pornography, I suppose I agree that children ought to be shielded from all forms of it, particularly when it comes to more perverse content.

Modern pornography has drifted incredibly far from the classic adult films we saw back in the 70s and 80s. Nowadays, the content seems to revolve around simulated assault, group scenarios, and increasingly aggressive acts like BDSM or extreme fetishes. I suppose most of these niche categories are specifically produced for hardened addicts who have become desensitized to mainstream material. It seems to me that the more transgressive genres are largely consumed by heterosexual men whose addictions have spiraled out of control, and I suspect this constant exposure causes irreparable damage to their actual sexual health.

I can't say I have an exhaustive list of these depravities at hand, though I hear enough about them from industry veterans to get the gist. I remember the first time I caught myself pitying one of those girls—wondering what exactly went wrong in her life that led her to film adult content. I found myself thinking about how she was once just a little girl playing with Barbies, dreaming about the future, and wondering where her parents were to guide her, or why she didn't just find a job as a waitress instead. It is difficult... when you look at a depersonalized human being, reduced merely to physical orifices under the glare of studio lights, and see a lost soul caught in the vortex of time... how does one even continue watching someone sell their dignity for money without feeling a sense of profound sadness?

I don't think anyone is actually discriminating against homosexuality, but I can't help but wonder why it feels like it's being constantly shoved down everyone's throats through the media and the education system. I suppose one has to ask why a mere 5 or 10 percent of the population should have the leverage to push their specific ideologies onto everyone else, forcing the rest of us to just blindly accept it regardless of the potential consequences of such teaching and behavior.

Maybe it's not quite 5 or 10 percent? Based on that Galup anecdote from 2002, about 22 percent of people in the USA identified as homosexual.

If you look at other minority groups that frequently face discrimination, the latest census shows that African Americans make up about 12 percent of the American population.

The Jew population in the USA is roughly 2 percent. I guess if you compare those figures, you can draw your own conclusions about what's really happening here.

Donna White50 said:Fluid sexuality is exactly that—it's something that changes based on your environment or personal experiences. Think about what shaped your views on what kind of guys you're attracted to—body types, hair color, certain vibes, or even fantasies you have while you're solo because of something you saw or felt... if you're wired toward fetishes, you link them to pleasure, whether it's a certain look, muscles, a piece of clothing, or even something more intense...

You want examples of how things like porn affect young people? Here you go:
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/are-fetishes-innate
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ask-...ay-transsexual
https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1453...6ace54af28be99

To me, it's incredibly important what kind of environment my child grows up in, or honestly, any of us—whether it's food, health, habits, work, education, or sexuality. It matters to me because I know how easily people can be manipulated, and how the media can basically brainwash everyone under the guise of "progress," "freedom," or "success."
Honestly, people like you really get on my nerves—those who live by the motto "everyone should just do whatever they want"—because that kind of thinking is just totally lacking in reflection and responsibility toward the future.

When it comes to homosexuality, sure, everyone has the right to do whatever they want in their own bedroom, and they have the same rights as everyone else. But nobody has the right to push that lifestyle as the "correct" or desirable way to live, especially when it clashes with our biological foundation and people end up poisoning the public discourse without considering the consequences. Maybe the bisexual trend isn't a huge deal at first glance, but it is if we consider that such sexualities often lean toward promiscuity, and the whole issue of family and kids is tied directly to sexual orientation. And I bet even you wouldn't be happy if you met a partner, had a kid with them, and then found out tomorrow they had a boyfriend... and that they're, well, a little more gay than usual...

Honestly, some of what the homophobes are saying actually hits home sometimes—mostly because so many people who identify as gay or bisexual are genuinely struggling to accept who they are. You’ll hear people say they shouldn't exist, but the reality is that so many of them just want a family and kids... they're often heteroromantic, or they're dealing with the fallout from porn addiction, paraphilias, or past trauma. It’s just sad, really—these are people stuck with a sexuality they can't escape even if they desperately wanted to. A life and an identity wrecked by porn addiction or being brainwashed into gender reassignment carries the same weight as a young life ruined by drugs or alcoholism in the States. These people lose their shot at a normal life, a career, or a family, and that’s just tragic—regardless of how "cool" or progressive you think it all is, or how much you care about being inclusive... And it gets even worse if we give them adoption rights, because then you're basically passing that struggle down to the next generation. Just look at how many people in America deal with impotence or infertility, or how much money the pharmaceutical and porn industries rake in, and it starts to make sense. It's the price we pay for being so obsessed with individual freedom and living lives without any real responsibility... Just because you feel bad about it doesn't mean you're right...

I suppose fluidity is just part of our inherent nature. Research seems to suggest it's less pronounced in men than in women, though it remains a variable that can be activated in anyone, regardless of whether pornography is involved or not.

One could argue that we aren't nearly as binary as what Jesus taught us, especially when you consider the chimpanzee and its smaller cousin, the bonobo, with whom we share about 98 percent of our DNA.

I suppose others are just engaging in their second day of aimless fooling around because they have nothing better to occupy their time. People don't just engage in sex for procreation; they do it for pleasure and enjoyment, which makes me think that perhaps almost everyone is bisexual to some degree. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this isn't some depraved act conditioned by pornography or something gifted by Satan, despite what you might believe.

At the end of the day, the focus is just on having fun, so I suppose I don't really see how that could possibly lead to an apocalypse.

I suppose I find the environment in which my child grows up to be an incredibly significant matter, much like the surroundings we all inhabit—whether that concerns nutrition, health, daily habits, the workplace, education, or sexuality. It matters deeply to me because I am under the impression that people are remarkably susceptible to manipulation, and there is a constant risk that the media might attempt to brainwash the public with various agendas, all while masking them under the guise of progress, freedom, the future, success, or wealth.
It’s people like you who get under my skin the most—those who live by the hollow mantra that everyone should just be allowed to do whatever they want. I suppose such a mindset is fundamentally devoid of any real thought or sense of responsibility toward the future.

I’m not entirely sure how you managed to draw a connection between your child's safety and the supposed threat posed by homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individuals. I suppose I just don't follow your logic. It isn't as if we are dealing with an aggressive population; if anything, these are mostly people who face systemic violence both here in the States and in the regions further south and east of us.

When it comes to homosexuality, I suppose everyone should have the right to do whatever they please behind closed doors, as that is a matter of private conduct, and these individuals certainly possess their own rights just like anyone else. However, I don't think anyone has the right to promote such a lifestyle as being correct or desirable, especially when this way of thinking conflicts with our basic biological nature and is pushed upon the public without any accountability for the consequences.

It isn’t really about promoting anything; I suppose the core issue here is discrimination based on sexual orientation, which really ought to end. That seems to be exactly what you're doing, though—treating them like they're sick or somehow a threat to your child.

Maybe this trend toward bisexuality isn't inherently catastrophic at first glance, though I suppose it becomes an issue if we consider that people with that orientation often lean toward more promiscuous behavior; furthermore, the stability of family life and children is inextricably linked to our sexual orientation. I imagine you wouldn't be particularly happy either if you met a partner, had a child with them, and then discovered they had a boyfriend because they were suddenly feeling a bit more gay than usual...

It really just comes down to finding someone else. I guess there isn't much of a difference. One might argue that betrayal is always betrayal, regardless of gender... but since I'm not particularly prone to jealousy, perhaps it doesn't matter all that much.

All of this is simply the price we pay for being intoxicated by individual freedom and a lifestyle devoid of responsibility. Just because your concern hurts doesn't necessarily mean you're right...

I feel like you're demonizing what is essentially a benign, joyful activity like sex just a little too much.

Regarding the adult film industry, I suppose I don't have anything against those old, innocent clips featuring some blonde pizza delivery guy in shorts whom Helga and Elsa want to tip with a little something extra, but I am certainly against the repulsive perversions currently trending, as well as the fact that these videos are now so easily accessible to young people who build their entire perception of women and intimacy based on them.