'>>452519
historically the arts are an inherently homosexual/androgynous-leaning commitment.
Dionysos was often both male and female.
Apollo was (very) gay.

and while cultural differences can be found, there is a tendency for the androgyn having often been perceived as the synthesis of male and female within one body.
it is a form of balance, a sort of yinyang, that sometimes has been perceived purer than either half on its own.

the hermaphrodite is neither male nor female. it can therefore serve as the role of a male when interacting with the female, or as the role of the female when confronted with the male.
it will never be either of them, but be able to sympathize with both - understanding aspects of human existence neither do on their own.
culturally this was made good use of: men knowing that a member would not take advantage of their wives allowed them to stay with the tribe - for example as shamans.
larger religions artificially created this effect with celibacy and castrated eunuchs. their payoff matrix is different.

the gay is not a hunter. nor a father or a mother.
it has a unique role in society and a lot of time. time a parent does not have.
they do not find eternal life by raising children, but by creating artifacts.

don't forget we are talking stereotypes here.
also I am not a fag personally. I don't care about them. I am not interested in discussing politics.';

'>>452521
>the gay is not a hunter. nor a father or a mother.
>it has a unique role in society and a lot of time. time a parent does not have.
>they do not find eternal life by raising children, but by creating artifacts.

Glad that you qualified this as being about stereotypes; obviously being "gay" doesn't prevent conception and plenty of gay people have biological offspring via heterosexual encounters that oddly enough don't mark them as straight for life the way even a single same sex encounter is held as making someone irreversibly not straight.

And of course non- biologically connected individuals of all sexual stripes can and do contribute to child rearing not just among humans but throughout the animal kingdom...the idea that non-reproducing individuals are an aberration that nature abhors because they can't contribute to the continued existence of the species is just monumentally dumb.

The other stuff about androgyny and its unique perspective and the value placed upon it historically is all spot on and the fact that it isn't considered or spoken of more is an interesting study...if for no other reason that it shows how quickly and near completely vast amounts of history and belief and experience can be virtually disappeared in public discourse and understanding.

Fact is that the current notions of what is "true" and "correct" and " natural" and "understood" by "science" regarding this aspect of human existence are but a tiny blip in the history of such notions...people act as if they are ancient truths when in many cases they aren't even a century old...and act as if they are or were universally accepted when they have literally never been universally accepted.

A good rule of thumb is that when extreme ridicule and summary dismissal is the go to approach to any of these concepts, there's often something being actively hidden that people are desperate to prevent from being known.';

'>>452521
lol dumb cunt you cant write that then pretend 'am so above le politics'

>>452519
cograts you dont live in a shitty small town anymore i guess dont be such a pussy faggot';

'>>452582
>cant write that then pretend 'am so above le politics'
lul wut? why? are you retarded? I did not mention a single political word. what is there for me to pretend?
not a single word about who should be allowed or forbidden to do what. not about suppression or minority politics. I didn't suggest future plans or goals. didn't sell an agenda, nor hated on one. nothing.

I compiled a few historical facts that are obviously related to what OP asked.

if your smooth brain can't handle the cognitive dissonance coming from not being able to argue against anything gay related that doesn't make me political but you easy to provoke, my little snowflake.
>I beg you to show me the political part of what I said
also learn how to read! I said 'discussing politics'. everybody has a political opinion to some degree.';

'>>452583
LOL, you are once again spot on...

>>452582 unwittingly proves the point about how the very concept of androgyny angers and inflames people of limited intellect who *need* to see everything as black/white either/or, us/vs them, red/blue, whatever.

Even inelligent people have to accept that much of the subject isn't well understood or provenale one way or another and requires acknowledging that truth to be intellectually honest, but the morons facing that hurdle just lose their minds and HAVE to make it a political issue and thus a moral one of right vs wrong so they know which "side" to be on. That's also why even the suggestion of viewing things as a "spectrum" for the purposes of an expanded perspective angers them...there's no "side" to be on or be morally opposed to.

>>452582 also unwittingly proves why procreation for its own sake isn't all its cracked up to be, simply by existing. Thankfully the chances of him ever participating in the process are slim to none.';

'>>452585
I wouldn't even have known without your validation!
hopefully you'll keep rephrasing my own takes in order for me to understand them';

'>>452594
None of that was a "rephrasing of (your) own take", but if you think it was maybe you could use one.

Are you just not familiar with the concept of a "conversation", or did you confuse this with your personal blog?';

'>>452596
I would like it to be a conversation. that is why it annoys me to read a longer version of my own point... am I missing something??';

'>>452597
This post >>452583 (evidently you) was a defense against a claim by some moron that you implied 'I am so above le politics'...

>>452585 comments on the moron and his motivations but doesn't "rephrase" your defense at all, and only references it in the very beginning by saying it was correct.

If someone doing so "annoys" you then you clearly aren't capable of an actual conversation.

Same goes for getting pissy and snarky when someone offers their own thoughts after reading yours...you seem to want to make comments without anyone else talking about the same ideas and subjects, that's not how conversations work.

This isn't your blog, so either stay on topic and quit attacking people for agreeing with you and adding their own thoughts, or expect pushback.

It's an interesting subject, why the fuck can't you just discuss it and let others do the same without going off topic to critique their posts in a snotty manner and being an asshole?';

'>>452604
me:
>smooth brain (singular) can't handle the topic. that doesn't automatically make me talk politics
you:
>these smooth brains (plural) can't handle the topic. but without ever impregnating a woman.
and I am the asshole?
you are selling the same idea as me but making it politics again by painting this image of some antagonistic group.
this is your agenda. not mine. and I will NOT NOT comment on you incorporating my argumentation into your message. you don't like reading blogposts. why would I care? don't read them.
I prefaced not being about politics. you come along and try bridling me into your own narrative.
you can add whatever you want to the discussion, but appealing to my non-assholeness and telling me to accept your message without criticizing you will not change MY behavior. I am sorry if you feel betrayed, but I have no interest in supporting one side of the political discussion over the other. neither by my own choice, nor by yours. I am not part of your message. even if there is overlap. talk for yourself. but get off my ass. I am not interested in circle jerking.

>that's not how conversation works
actual conversations might be more complex than you are trying to imply. in my world showing annoyance can be a fair part of it - just like showing affiliation, opinion, reason or status.
I choose context in my messages with purpose. that original purpose is more important to me than being perceived a nice person on a weaving forum.

what makes you assume I am not expecting pushback?
what makes you assume that anticipating a reason for setting boundaries between the two of us not to be part of what I have in mind?
I agree. it is an interesting subject and I am looking forward to what you are going to contribute without making me a part of it.';

'>>452521
>culturally this was made good use of: men knowing that a member would not take advantage of their wives allowed them to stay with the tribe - for example as shamans.
that's not what happened. what happened is that the "shaman" - let's stick with that - banged the chicks too. The animal kingdom and even recent japanese history has enough evidence of this, see "wakashu" culture... There's also the possibility that some pre historic people were matriarchal, so women choose their mates anyway and men had no say in the first place. This may have stopped with the start of 'harem economies', as they are actually called - think ancient Egypt for a very simple, long lasting and prominent example. The palaces of these bronze age city states were basically manufactures for fine art trinkets, clothes and non metal tools of all kinds. All these cultural achievements, like death masks and such are more often than not the legacy of long forgotten slave cultures they assimilated. Now here comes my own speculation: in some places and times such kings, who herded and bred the women of captured tribes, wised up to the sneaky nature of the swishy men they probably got as bycatch when those were still boys. I suspect, since the bloodline meme is directly linked to the rise of these patriarchal city states, that this has to be the time around which they came up with their own perverted facsimile of the former shaman: the eunuch harem-administrator. Like pharaonic circumcision and foot binding for women, this is the medicine for "gay" men in such a milieu.
>>452523 got it right, I think - but you're spot on with the rest you said
>Glad that you qualified this as being about stereotypes; obviously being "gay" doesn't prevent conception and plenty of gay people have biological offspring via heterosexual encounters that oddly enough don't mark them as straight for life the way even a single same sex encounter is held as making someone irreversibly not straight.';

'>>452519
try shutting the fuck up idiot';

'>>453526';

'Homos like the creative fields because it's all in the head. You'll never see a gay be happy to work a construction job.';

'>>453526
Haha… Homo alert!';

'>>453529
>>453530
>>453533
haha underage in the closet faggots alert

ive met more macho queers than you'll ever hope to be

get a life';

'>>452521
Interesting stuff to think about. I have been again racking my brain about the themes and generally the philosophy of elden ring a lot lately in preparation for the DLC. Not sure if you're at all familiar but Marika/Radagon as a sort of twinned soul/male and female aspect of a single person.';

'>>453536
>macho queers
oxymoron (noun)
UK: /ˌɒk.sJˈmɔː.rɒn/
US: /ˌɑːk.sJˈmɔːr.ɑːn/
two words or phrases used together that have, or seem to have, opposite meanings';

'>>452519
>Study art
>Realize you cant really make living out of it
>Become communist';

'>>452519
doesn't matter.
make right wing design.';

'>>453552
>seem to

>>453553
hitler wasnt a communist

>>453560
i guess you could try';

'op here, how the fuck is this thread still up, anyways I dropped out it was fucking lame and the teacher sucked, now I draw furries full time';

'>>453606
another victory for the queer design agenda';

'>>452519
They've spent most of their time drawing furry porn since they were 12';

'>>453650
furries arent really a queer thing

>>453606
see?';

'>>453651
>furries arent really a queer thing
feminine penis meme of 2024';