Raising faggots

Sexuality in males is an iffyⁱ affairⁱⁱ, because the physiologyⁱⁱⁱ of male^iv sexual organs is structurally ambiguous. To wit : there are two distinct nexuses of particularly sensitive innervation with sexual overtones^v in the male apparatus. One is found on the inside of foreskin and around the frenulum, the other is found inside the rectum, in between the intestinal wall and the prostate.

Consequently, male sexuality is deeply amenable to... cultivation! If you exercise the one, you will get classical penile-centered virility, and the object^vi of your efforts will go around seeking things to stick his penis into and pester them with the by now traditional "would you like to go for a soda ? why not ?" etcetera. If, however, you exercise the other, you will get classical faggotry^vii.

So, are you one of a married unit of faggots ? Did you manage to convince the "public community" that a faggot's born, not made, and consequently it's perfectly "safe", whatever that may mean, to let you have your way with a child or two ? And do you secretly wish to raise kids like you, rather than like them ?^viii Well then, have I got the guide for you!

Physiological measures. Absolutely must circumcise the child at birth. It's true that the little buggers masturbate even in the womb, but it helps immensely to remove most of the nerve endings in the undesirable area. As an added bonus masturbation becomes mechanically difficult, requiring outside lubrication and so on, which makes the work of psychological measures below all that easier.^ix

You could also try the holy cock cage, but not really before the age of eleven or so^x. Still, the idea of a farm of naked pubescent boys, cocks tightly wrapped so they can't help it but develop anal feelings for you is pretty hot, wouldn't you say ? You faggot you! And besides, repressive measures don't work as well as progressive measures above, or at least so the pantsuit believe.

Psychological measures. You'll probably want to hit the sauce as heavily as possible on "there's no medical downside to shoving dildos up your ass"^xi agitprop, and obviously provide silicone dildoes qs. Heck, kids love playing, so you could make it into a game, "how far down on the orange traffic cone can you sit this week, Jimmy ?"

People^xii can be led to believe absolutely any pile of nonsense through the tediously simple process known as "just the facts", which is to say careful curation of input to avoid any mention of MP and insistently repeat things about "scientific consensus".

Turns out raising faggots isn't even particularly hard. In fact, you've been doing it, for years. Congrats, I guess ?

1. Have you ever wondered what feeds the ever-present, universal conviction of the primitive mind that "summoning" is a thing ? If you never have you are thereby not smart, as a factual matter. If you have, has this wonderment ever arive to any conclusion ?

   Let me resovle the wonder (yes, if you've not found this on your own you are thereby not very smart, also as a factual matter) : every mind advanced enough to have discovered fire has thereby experienced (in its own terminology and by its own context) successful summoning. Here's a pile of wood, or charcoal, or grain alcohol or your husband. There, not here but there is fire, entirely a transcendent (well, plasma really, but not at that intellectual level). It can be summoned into existence by following the proper recipe and blowing upon the assembled pile the correct incantations, but it is evidently not of this world ; nor does it long remain here. The experience, the lived, fundamental experience of summoning fire into matter is what sits at the root of magical thinking in primitive man ; and inasmuch as it's a universal occurrence there's no escaping it. The only available alternatives are to go further, or else to not go quite as far. There is no alternative to fire summoning as far as the phenomenology of existence is concerned, and while alternatives could, for the sake of exercising one's imagination, be contrived, nevertheless they are matters of gnoseology not ontology -- things that are thought, not things that are.

   This then is what makes thinking in humans an iffy matter -- exercised one way it can blossom into one thing even as exercised the other way it could blossom into quite another thing. [↩]

2. Doesn't that sound great ? "Iffy affair" ? Mwahahaha. [↩]
3. To understand each other : anatomy is the description of a biological entity in terms of its structure and composition, entirely a static affair like the blueprint for a car or house or hammer. Physiology is the description of the normal functioning of a given biological entity, things such as "if you press this pedal the engine revs" rather than things like "there is a pedal five inches from the door". Meanwhile pathology is the description of the abnormal functioning of a given biological entity, especially with a view to risk of damage whereas semiology is the list of finite indicators of certain pathology, a sort of anatomy of pathology if you will). Teleology does not interest us in this article ; or generally. [↩]
4. Strictly male. While sexual organs in humans are related, and thereby vaguely similar, nevertheless females do not possess the anatomic supports for sexual ambiguity. Consequently homosexuality in females is not only entirely natural, and to some degree of manifestation entirely common, but rather always and without exception a wholly psychological affair, with no support in biology whatsoever. [↩]
5. The brain interprets what the nerves feel, which is why all the giggles in young women -- the same exact physical sensation that is interpreted as tickling could also have been interpreted as sexually arousing. If you had a better car, hurr durr. Or if she were older. Or if she had been trained for it. Or all of the above.

   This then is what "erogenous zones" are : bundles of nerves which are passible of being sexually interpreted by the brain. As it turns out there's lots and lots of them, because Pavlov. [↩]

6. I always found amusing the guilty pretense of calling the objects of thought "subjects", as if by calling them that somehow the shame is washed away.

   Here's the problem with thinking : it can only ever proceed on objects. Anything and everything you ever think about is being objectified, as a necessary precondition of the process of thinking about it. That's why you feel queasy in the hospital -- it's not because "they're treating you as if you were an object", but because there's no other way to run anything even vaguely like a hospital other than by objectifying the patients. It's a necessary requisite of thought, the damned bitch will only proceed on objects and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

   Which yes, does leave stranded the inept mews of "feminists" about male sexual interest "objectifying" women. All it means is that they're thinking about you ; and all they mean is that unlike you, they aren't thinking of anything (besides their future babies -- those are safe to objectify, being yet inexistent). [↩]

7. Which is not exactly feminity, but we're not about to get sucked into the all-devouring self interest of the faggot to the point of making this article about all the many subtle shades, flavours and whatevers of his ever-so-important being, okay ? [↩]
8. This, if you're wondering, is why they hate the Jews. [↩]
9. Let's quote Tucker Max here :

   I was hanging out with a girl in my basement who evidently had one of those dads who loved her and paid attention to her, because she wouldn't sleep with me or give head. Fucking great. Now what? She started to rub her hand up and down my cock. I liked it a lot, and then -- to my mild shock -- I came all over her. She was not pleased. The best part was that this only pissed her off because she "had just washed that shirt." Ah, Kentucky.

   So the next day I call her to come over but she is busy or whatever. Then it dawns on me: that thing she did, with her hand . . . I could do that myself. I have hands. I can rub one up and down too. So I try it. It worked! And in quite the revelation, I discover that I am even better at it than she was. I'm a fucking natural!

   So I do it again. And lo and behold, it works again! Just as good as the last time! This whole masturbation thing is fucking great. Why has everyone been so down on it? I go again. And then one more time. You know, for luck. Later that night, I pulled out one of my uncle's Hustler magazines. It was like looking at it for the fi rst time all over again. That's when I realized: porn isn't a study guide. It's a masturbatory aid! By the time I was done, I was exhausted, and that magazine looked like someone had dropped it in a swimming pool. The well-adjusted girl with appropriate sexual boundaries called me the next day:

   Girl "Hey, can I come over?"
   Tucker "Do you want to have sex?"
   Girl "No—I told you, I don't want to have sex until college."
   Tucker "Will you go down on me?"
   Girl "No, I don't like that. But we can, you know, do the other thing. But you need to be more careful this time, like where it goes."
   Tucker "Nah, just forget it. I've... found someone better."

   Ever thought those "fundamentalist christian" kids were practically raised to be faggots ? Well... guess what! They were. [↩]

10. Cock cages attach securely if they hug the ballsac tightly, on the principle that however pain-tolerant the subject may be (and males aren't usually), they'll desist trying to get it off long before they manage because the ring pulling against the balls hurts. This only works if the balls are there in the ballsac to get caught, whereas small boys hold their balls inside their bodies, like little ovaries. They don't really travel to the ballsac until early puberty (and sometimes, they don't naturally travel at all). [↩]
11. Hey, the same scientological church that produced consensus re "global warming" produced other similarly valuable items as well. What, shoving things up your ass isn't good for you, and cigarettes don't kill ? APOSTATE!!! [↩]
12. Especially not very smart people, such as children. [↩]