File: file.png (101 KB, 225x225)

101 KB PNG

I made this connection because all straight men are given (or should be given) knowledge upon coming of age that women are batshit crazy and should be treated almost like property or animals at times. At the very least, one should assert their authority over them.

Conversely, if you are not taught this growing up, you treat women as though they make decisions because of rational thoughts in their mind. Which is to say, you treat them like men. And if you LIKE this situation (sexually engaging with someone who is rationally just like you), then are you not functionally gay? Regardless of body parts.

I'd further venture a guess that someone who is either so completely willing to pursue this romantic pathway is most willing to do physical gay sex (although apparently trauma and abuse leading to disassociation might cause something similar), whereas someone who views women more crudely and animalistically could never look at a man with the same vigor and therefore could not become gay.

I think gayness is an accidental extreme end of the romantic ideal. Everywhere that you see male/female romance elevated and exemplified, you inevitably see a thriving gay community. I think the same is effectively true of women who are lesbian.

There has to be some kind of impetus for one to turn away from the gender they should be attracted to (which might range from abuse to heavy suggestion to accidental suggestion (like a duckling following the wrong mother), but there is also a baseline for how mutable the person's traits are. A person's mutability determines how much they will absorb of the romantic ideal and how effectively they will fight it off as the parasite that it is. (The weird thing is, if you completely kill it, your life loses some vitality too, so you have to exist suspended in the balance).

I think highly mutable people, less masculine men, and gay men all form Venn diagram with tons of crossover.