Posted on 10/15/2013 6:01:25 PM PDT by Enza Ferreri
True, but not politically correct! You can’t say that!
I’ve just said it.
YES!
Repeat...Rinse,... Repeat...
Anal sex. What’s not to like? /sarc
Blue chicken theory
Paint a chicken blue and put it with a bunch of white chickens. Seeing that it’s different and potentially harmful of the flock, they “take care of the problem”.
We are not animals, but deep in the back of our hind brain, instinct tells us that is a deviation from the norm and dangerous to the species.
Repulsion? or Revulsion.
*** many mammalian species’ females go through periods of oestrus or heat, so sexual attraction is limited to those times. ***
I’ve worked with farm animals and this is true. A female in heat will produce a scent that excites the males. When not in heat they ignore each other. A bull or stallion will occasionally sniff the pee of a female to see if she is coming into heat.
What scent can a male produce to make other males excited for him? It appears humans are excited by SIGHT and not estrus.
Disgusting too.
Revulsion. = Homo-misia.
Same for Islamo-misia.
I think he meant “revulsion” and not “repulsion.”
I believe that we all are responsible for our fates, but...
The lesbian scenes from “Monster” made med sick.
Tried watching “Orange is the New Black” (since Breaking Bad was ending) and I couldn’t get past the first episode. (And I liked that 70’s show - Donna, you were in love Eric, not a Lesbo) but I just found the lesbian sex to be repulsive.
Guess my point of posting here is - I’m libertarian - I think everyone has to face their Maker and make their own peace, but I find lesbian sex to be repulsive.
“Repulsion” and “revulsion” are synonyms, they mean the same.
It is also very unhealthy.
The wife and the husband were interviewed and she had a look of almost casual resignation on her face. He appeared in full drag.
They also interviewed their two oldest children. They loved their father, but they did not like or understand his "condition." They appeared to have an innocent yet knowledgable revulsion. They instinctively knew that their father was messed up, but they were absolutely powerless to help him.
I personally think it was quite selfish of him to subject his children and his wife to his problem in full bore drag.
Disgust is not “hate”.
Refusing to endorse deviant behavior, is not hate.
Behavior at odds with the natural use of the human bodily functions is deviant.
The idea that anything that society suppresses by its mores, rules and laws is “evil” or somehow inappropriate or undesirable is plainly ludicrous.
Are laws that suppress the urge of killing undesirable?
Are laws that suppress the urge to steal inappropriate?
Are mores that frown upon liars evil?
Are laws against speeding suppressive?
Are laws that suppress the urge of raping regressive?
And on and on - there are myriads more of such examples.
They will argue that those particular “urges” hurt others, but that homosexual marriage doesn’t hurt anyone.
Well once upon a time society used to frown upon out of wedlock pregnancies. Then because “it didn’t hurt anyone”, being a single mother was not only accepted, but like the gays that get married today, it became a badge of honor, an object of respect even, a heroic act.
But nobody was hurt, right? Only society, which means you and me, through higher crime rates, endless welfare programs, millions of angry and maladjusted kids, etc... and I bet most single mothers live a life of regrets. Nobody got hurt!
So in hindsight, perhaps society’s rules against single motherhood may have been the right thing after all.
So now we come to gay marriage, and we have to ask the same question. From what were those societal rules that frowned upon homosexuality protecting us? My guess is that the victims will be pretty much the same - society as a whole through a further degradation of families - which has been the most important social unit in any civilization.
And I imagine the kids brought up with a “male mother” or a “female father” will be in dire need of Freud’s profession (psychoanalysis). Maybe that was Freud’s goal all along - a way to drum up business. For if you think a bit of sexual repression can cause neurosis on a few people, unrestricted sexual freedom will be an incredible boon for shrinks and social workers. Unfortunately society (you and me) will be picking up the tab both in dollars and human suffering.
All this reminds me of a great poem from R. Kipling...
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm
If we are not at the last stanza yet, we’re getting awfully close.
Bump....
Sigmund Freud believed that society is a necessary evil, in that the individual's natural urges must be sacrificed for it, which gives rise to neuroses and psychoses.
He inspired the idea that, if we were left to our natural sentiments and impulses, we would only feel attraction for everything that is sexual. Repulsion, shame, disgust only come from society's repressive influence.
This interpretation of Freud is so bizarre it's even beyond wrong.
It's like saying apples aren't sweet because the housing market is shifting from wood framing to slab walls.
In other words, WTF?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.