Why are there so many BLs?

[WandersGlade]

WandersGlade and yourself should do some brainstorming and write an article for Mu on this topic.

I think we'll have to see if we have common ground first. People who are interested in psychoanalysis can be very sectarian (for example I avoid anything to do with Jacques Lacan). Maybe a structured debate would be more interesting to an outside audience?

I'm aware of how pathologising it can be, but to conduct psychoanalysis, you'll find that raw truths are usually ugly, but that does not change anything about our surface, more abstracted layers of pure love, those are as real as ever.

I'm not sure about that. Isn't the main objective of psychoanalysis to cure neurosis? I'm not sure that there's necessarily any relationship between homosexuality and neurosis. If homosexuality is caused by prenatal hormones (or is some sort of inborn trait), then homosexuality would come before neurosis could develop. Under those circumstances, unless you take away the factor of pleasure, I don't see why homosexuality would need to be explained as a maladaptive defense mechanism.

1. "Raw" Homosexuality
==========
This is the relationship where there is no definitive "top" nor "bottom", these are usually man-man relationships where both are "switch" or "versatile". It is defined by a pronounced scatalogical interest (even more deviant anal play, and anal-oral contact). The major theory is that it's due to toxoplasma infection. This is the relationship where both appear very "gay", extremely more than the other two groups.

Could you link the papers showing that?

2. Neurotic/Psychological Homosexuality
==========
This is the relationship where there is a definitive "top" and "bottom", a man-boy relationship. Tropes like BDSM are very prominent. This type of relationship is primarily driven by neurosis, for the bottom, compliance type neurosis; for the top; expansive type neurosis.

The top seeks out a "sissy boy" to demonstrate power over, in order to assert his own masculinity. The top simply has an insecurity complex and wants to affirm his superiority.

However, the bottom's insecurity complex is that oneself is too weak to be alone, but not weak enough to be seen as "worthy" for protection. Thus, the bottom seeks out a "real man" to degrade himself, this notably includes the "hurt then comfort" arc. I theorise that this is heavily correlated with gender dysphoria and MTF transgenderism, identifying as MTF/transitioning is merely the more extreme end of that spectrum, to want to adopt the stereotypical "weaker" female identity to further bolster the sense of inferiority/being dominated.

I mean, couldn't it all just be explained by the motive of physical pleasure?

It turns out that Ms Karen Horney, the developer of her theory of neurosis, also noted this in her book Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization, describing "case studies of symbiotic relationships between arrogant-vindictive and self-effacing individuals, labeling such a relationship bordering on sadomasochism as a morbid dependency."

Does this mean heterosexual sex is also sadomasochistic, e.g. all heterosexual women are masochistic and self-effacing? Again, I think you could explain the sexually receptive role purely on the basis of pleasure.

This artificial inflated phase (yes, it does include economic inflation too - see the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/) has great toils on our minds - what Mr Ted Kaczynski wrote in his magnum opus Industrial Society and Its Future was, I realised recently, describing those problems exactly. For example. he writes of "two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization"". This is clearly a description of neuroticism, and particularly, the compliance type. It is very unfortunate that Mr Kaczynski did not have enough interdisciplinary knowledge nor breadth of view to fit all of human history - it is my current goal to finish authoring a spiritual successor of his work, with those gaping flaws filled in.

Yikes.

Most of modern alt-leftism (radical neoliberalism) can be aetiologically said to be powered by compliant neuroticism - there is an expectancy of unfulfillable amounts of empathy for copious amounts of people, and from this point it is clear how things like identity crisis politics (see my blog for a more detailed discussion on that), attitudes to immigrants and the like came to be.

To be honest it seems like left-wingers hate conservatives more than they care about immigrants.

The taboo and sanctity of sexual intercourse and monogamy in modern day has become such hardwired social constructs, so much that that we've come to see them as proof of the highest level of love. Not just that, but with someone you love so much, you would expect the best to and from each other, which includes the heavenly pleasure of sex.

The one thing I could somewhat agree on, even though I would have phrased it differently.

Hopefully this isn't too much of a bad first impression on my part. I'm glad that we have someone else who is interested in psychoanalysis on board.

[Artaxerxes II]

I think it comes down to many things, but some that I think are more important include:

- Earlier activism: With the exception of PiE, The vast majority of the early wave MAP right activists had been pederasts and gay pedophiles, with he early activist spaces within the political spectrum of the 1970s counterculture being dominated by gay peso and pederastic orgs like NAMBLA. As such, it wouldn't be surprising how most of the prominent MAP rights activists of the 20th century were either homosexual pedophiles, pederasts, or wrote extensively about boy love despite not being homosexual. It goes without saying that Tom O'Carroll was more of an exception in being a prominent girl lover within the broader first-wave MAP rights activism (or "youth sexual liberation", if you will), despite self-surveys by PiE and IPCE showing that most of its members then and now were heterosexual male pedophiles. This would eventually trickle down, as the early online pro-MAP spaces were filled up by gay boylovers (think BoyChat, Boywiki, and Free Spirits), whilst spaces for girl lovers are few and in-between.

- Older background: Simply put, pederasts had their own sub-culture which they can draw upon from "respectable" ancient civilisations like Ancient Greece and Rome, with an activist network that stretches as far back as the 19th century Uranian poets a la Oscar Wilde. So it's easy to see how it's not hard for BLs to form their own culture. In contrast girl-love, by virtue of being more normative in the past (the stigma is relatively recent) meant that it didn't stand out enough as needing its own sub-culture. Right now, the lolicon phenomenon of 1990s and modern-day Japan is the closest heterosexual equivalent to Greek-love (i.e., a subculture that allows for sanctioned expressions of child-love and minor-attraction), and the recent stigma against male girl-lovers due to 19th century purity movements means that pro-girllove activism is fairly recent. That, plus how most girllovers may not see themselves as MAPS, is likely why group selection bias causes most MAP spaces that aren't explicitly for girl-lovers being filled up with boylovers and pederasts.

- Stigmatisation by boylovers: One thing that I noticed is the chauvinism of some of the BLs above others, as well as they're insistence on using the Rind report to suggest that the age of consent should only be lowered for boys, an opinion shared by K. Hubbard (that researcher on Greek history who got run out from his department by rabid antis over his research on Greek pederasty). I think this can create an alienating environment for girl-lovers, many of whom are heterosexual males. This, combined with the overall perception of the MAP rights movement as a woke project trailing behind the LGBTQ+ one, makes it unappealing for heterosexual men that are ostensibly attracted to early pubescent women and pre-pubescent girls, so asking them to join a space where they may be the only heterosexual in an online group of homosexuals is a big ask, even if both belong to the most hated group in history.

Those are the best reasons I can think of. Let me know what I missed.

[WandersGlade]

It goes without saying that Tom O'Carroll was more of an exception in being a prominent girl lover within the broader first-wave MAP rights activism (or "youth sexual liberation", if you will), despite self-surveys by PiE and IPCE showing that most of its members then and now were heterosexual male pedophiles.

Interesting, I got the impression O'Carroll was a homosexual and the majority of PIE were boy lovers (like 70%). I wonder why I thought that?

[BLueRibbon]

It goes without saying that Tom O'Carroll was more of an exception in being a prominent girl lover within the broader first-wave MAP rights activism (or "youth sexual liberation", if you will), despite self-surveys by PiE and IPCE showing that most of its members then and now were heterosexual male pedophiles.

Interesting, I got the impression O'Carroll was a homosexual and the majority of PIE were boy lovers (like 70%). I wonder why I thought that?

O'Carroll is a GL.

That should not detract from the rest of the argument, to which I am very sympathetic despite being an exclusive BL.

[Joanne7315]

Wow, there are some very intellectual discussions here well beyond my intellect. I can only write as I am. I am a bisexual man with a roughly 50/50 [adult] attraction but my MAP attraction is much more defined. I am very firmly attracted to young girls. I am a Nepio fo basically anything between 0 and 9 is in the bracket. By the time you get to the teens I am swinging back to 50/50. I cannot tell you why, just is. The only thing I can offer is that young boys have uninspiring genitalia whereas young girls are still attractive. Boys hitting puberty however, different matter. Then again, they all have nice bums irrespective of age. I haven't helped one bit!

[parfait]

Firstly, I'm going to note that I completely forgot about the fraternal birth order, sibling effects, so I'll have to update that later.

I think we'll have to see if we have common ground first. People who are interested in psychoanalysis can be very sectarian (for example I avoid anything to do with Jacques Lacan). Maybe a structured debate would be more interesting to an outside audience?

I'm not sure about that. Isn't the main objective of psychoanalysis to cure neurosis? I'm not sure that there's necessarily any relationship between homosexuality and neurosis. If homosexuality is caused by prenatal hormones (or is some sort of inborn trait), then homosexuality would come before neurosis could develop. Under those circumstances, unless you take away the factor of pleasure, I don't see why homosexuality would need to be explained as a maladaptive defense mechanism.

I have never read any actual philosophical works, I don't care for formally studying an entire set of one person's views, I prefer analysing stuff from anecdotes. The most I've read are the Wikipedia pages and a few short articles about Freud, Horney (I do intent to read her book one day though). The only book I've read about philosophy is the first half of R D Laing's The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise. One person once said my views feel "Hobbesian", but I have no idea who that is nor do I bother reading anything he wrote or anything about him. As for "psychoanalysis", what I see it as is really just "psychology, but instead of looking at the surface symptoms, it's more like theoretical physics, modelling the lower level mechanics". Apart from that, i don't really know what psychoanalysis specifically is tbh.

Could you link the papers showing that?

I've researched for a while, and found:
- Nothing that links coprophilia with (latent) toxoplasmosis
- Nothing that links coprophilia with homosexuality
- Nothing much linking toxoplasmosis with homosexuality, most relevant is a study on toxoplasmosis in homosexual men and pareteral drug abusers (focusing on immunodeficiency)
- Not much on, and no definitive conclusions for links between toxoplasmosis and sadomasochism, but correlations have been observed
- One study did find that cat urine triggers the sexual arousal pathways in rats with toxoplasmosis
- Some studies say the toxoplasmosis effects on mice are specific to cat odours, others say it's more of a general anxiety reduction
- All studies seem to focus on cat urine, not faeces
- The mental effects of latent toxoplasmosis on humans are still extremely worrying and vastly understudied
Therefore, I now see the "toxoplasmosis theory" as not having enough evidential basis, but theoretically, it still has potential to, if not actually, turn out to be at least partly true. So I wouldn't fully endorse it, but it's absolutely worth a mention if the topic ever came up.

I mean, couldn't it all just be explained by the motive of physical pleasure?

Yeah, you're right, I realise that I've hyperfocused too much without being aware of it. it should have only been a description of less-recognised "psychological reasons", instead of claiming to be the only reasons possible. Plus, I've mixed up aetiology and the categories of how it presents outwardly, like I did while trying to model transgenderism. I've left out stuff like: (fraternal) birth order effects; other family effects; the concept of "universal attraction" - anything that resembles primary (and secondary) sexual characteristics we can be turned on by, e.g. anything at all that resembles a hole (see https://old.reddit.com/r/dontputyourdickinthat/), and it's just a spectrum of how close it resembles actual human genitalia; and lastly the idea relevant to the previous concept, that it's all just preferences on a spectrum and we don't need to specify "-philias" for anything.

Technically, the DSM-V definitions does implement that last point by having the criterion "feels personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval, OR that the sexual desire or behavior involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death" for "paraphilic disorders" (including "paedophilic disorder". For the former, it's for the sort of unresolved cognitive dissonance. I don't really think that can happen if society didn't actually exist, most if not all so-called double-binds only are there because of humans other than oneself (or even just the outside reality itself) existing. As for the latter, it's probably like bringing it in line with ASPD, when the symptoms/behaviour is too externalising and harmful. This is where the problems come in, with stuff like iatrogenic harm, and the mainstream interpretation of the definition (the mix-up between M/YAPs and sexual abusers, let alone that point requiring innate distress about the attraction!).

Does this mean heterosexual sex is also sadomasochistic, e.g. all heterosexual women are masochistic and self-effacing? Again, I think you could explain the sexually receptive role purely on the basis of pleasure.

I do partly believe the "male as top" and "female as bottom" roles are biologically inherent to an extent, for most people

[WandersGlade]

As for "psychoanalysis", what I see it as is really just "psychology, but instead of looking at the surface symptoms, it's more like theoretical physics, modelling the lower level mechanics". Apart from that, i don't really know what psychoanalysis specifically is tbh.

Fair enough. There's an underlying associationist approach in psychoanalysis, which looks for early experiences to explain people's personality and behavior. I think you're using the concept in the correct way, for the most part, it's just that psychoanalysis focuses on the environment more than the biologically innate.

Therefore, I now see the "toxoplasmosis theory" as not having enough evidential basis, but theoretically, it still has potential to, if not actually, turn out to be at least partly true. So I wouldn't fully endorse it, but it's absolutely worth a mention if the topic ever came up.

Something to for you to research yourself, maybe?

Yeah, you're right, I realise that I've hyperfocused too much without being aware of it. it should have only been a description of less-recognised "psychological reasons", instead of claiming to be the only reasons possible. Plus, I've mixed up aetiology and the categories of how it presents outwardly, like I did while trying to model transgenderism. I've left out stuff like: (fraternal) birth order effects; other family effects; the concept of "universal attraction" - anything that resembles primary (and secondary) sexual characteristics we can be turned on by, e.g. anything at all that resembles a hole (see https://old.reddit.com/r/dontputyourdickinthat/), and it's just a spectrum of how close it resembles actual human genitalia; and lastly the idea relevant to the previous concept, that it's all just preferences on a spectrum and we don't need to specify "-philias" for anything.

Also, there's the existence of the prostate. Arguably, it's more pleasurable for a man to be penetrated than for a woman.

Technically, the DSM-V definitions does implement that last point by having the criterion "feels personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval, OR that the sexual desire or behavior involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death" for "paraphilic disorders" (including "paedophilic disorder". For the former, it's for the sort of unresolved cognitive dissonance. I don't really think that can happen if society didn't actually exist, most if not all so-called double-binds only are there because of humans other than oneself (or even just the outside reality itself) existing.

What about in the context of obsessive-compulsive disorder? Like say you felt no shame about a sexual thought, but it kept going around in your head even when you didn't want it too. I think that could still exist, even if society didn't. I might have misunderstood you though.

As for the latter, it's probably like bringing it in line with ASPD, when the symptoms/behaviour is too externalising and harmful. This is where the problems come in, with stuff like iatrogenic harm, and the mainstream interpretation of the definition (the mix-up between M/YAPs and sexual abusers, let alone that point requiring innate distress about the attraction!).

Even with that second part of the criterion, pedophilia feels out of place. With other extreme paraphilias, like rape fetishism, harm is desired. A pedophile isn't necessarily attracted to children because the idea of hurting a child is appealing. So even if you accept that AMSC is harmful, it doesn't follow that pedophilia is an extreme paraphilia. I expect if you got them to accept that there was an inconsistency, they would move the goalposts, so they could still categorize pedophilia as wrong in some way.

Does this mean heterosexual sex is also sadomasochistic, e.g. all heterosexual women are masochistic and self-effacing? Again, I think you could explain the sexually receptive role purely on the basis of pleasure.

I do partly believe the "male as top" and "female as bottom" roles are biologically inherent to an extent, for most people

But is the bottom really masochistic and self-effacing? I'm not so sure.

[chrome]

This picture sums it all up.

[Rin]

As a BL,, I'd say that boys have an attractiveness and charm that they lose as they get older. While there are cases of adult men who remain attractive in their late 20s and up, I'd say the ratio of that is lower than in women, and yet they're still not as attractive as they were during their teen years and younger.
Boys are really beautiful, the androgyny that youth gives them certainly helps, I think.

[FairBlueLove]

O'Carroll is a GL.

This is correct, but, just for sake of completeness, he started as mostly boylover (this can be deduced from the book "the radical case", where he describes a few early episodes).