Flashback:

I remember having to cut off a freind before because he couldnt type. It wasnt entirely intentional. He wanted to stay in touch via email. So he would send me three sentence emails, and I would do my best to engage him.

But because he (an aspirng writer, no less) couldnt be bothered to learn to type, it was a great effort for him, so he would ignore most of my response. I realized I was just wasting my time.

So I explained to him that trying to exchange emails with someone who cant type is like trying to have a phone conversation with someone who doesnt speak English. Its just too much effort for very little actual communication.

>>40675396
I would agree with some of this. But it seems to circumlocute the core (and deliberate) misconceptions about sex being a lifestyle and identity. Not acknowledging that accepts the premise that this is how we divide and categorize males, and then give them a package of narratives and frames of reference.

Which then, of course, in turn invites us to revise our view of men in history. It undermines the natural social mechanics that reject preoccupation with sex by making this one particular practice special, and builds a mythology around it that, by the time you reach the modern incarnations of it, are completely removed from its natural if unflattering roots in basic male sexual development broadly, and not unique to a particular group. It is in fact making them a particular group that reinforces the idea that classifying this group of males as something other than people internally moved to indulge what is no less a vice than heterosexual non-procreative sex for their own emotional reasons.

Moreover, this focuses entirely on what the group does and feels, not what, by implication, they do not do or not feel. We can clearly see in most cultures that there are males who- in different contexts, situations, ages, class- engage in same sex behavior in addition to a traditional male lifestyle. They are not especially distinct from the group. What distinguishes the group we have indexeed as "gay" is not their attraction to men, or masculinity, or their emotional reasons for it, but that they have not developed an interest in females or flatly reject them, and thats a material criteria that needs to be understood if its going to be discussed as a departure from the norm.

>>40487363
... And to do it, you need confidence, which is also not some warm fuzzy platitude. Its a real thing that can be defined. It means you trust yourself to do it to the best of your ability. And that trust is obviously broken, and thats reasonable if you have given up.

So you have two options: you can go on distrusting your will to improve things, or you can rebuild that trust by trying. And when you fail, and you will, you try again. But you will know you keep trying. The worst failure is not trying.

And even worse than that is insulting my intelligence and asking me to join your descent into crazy because that really pisses me off.

>>40427191
Yeah it actually wasnt that hard because I didnt feel the need to announce to everyone what I did with my dick looking for validation that was either not going to be there or was going to be some fake libshit line but you do you.

I got in and out of the military as a known freak during DADT and guess what: DADT actually works pretty well anywhere. You only need to A and T if you are planning to make a move.

There were no apps so you actually had to have some fucking social skills and intuition for guys ffs.

Fucking gays acting like the 90s were the gay holocaust when we just left the gayest decade ever before that. Talk about glam hair, earrings, make-up and short shorts.

Gimme a break. And this was farm country we're talking about. Turns out there is a lot less rejection when you arent embarrassing everyone near you being loud and proud and have any game whatsoever. I just cant relate.