It depends on a lot of factors, and in most cases, he’s not so much a closeted gay as he is a virgin. :dubious:
In the cases where it was “true”, it was often not consensual on the girls’ part.
I hope you weren’t thinking I was saying those hetero braggarts were secretly gay. I meant nothing of the kind.
The whole concept is called “compensating”: talking loud and long about something that’s the opposite of an uncomfortable reality. Whether that’s the closeted-in-denial gay who’s also a loud gay basher, or the hetero virgin who tells tall tales of sexual prowess. Two difference scenarios; one common mental process.
This is a real thing that happens. Try Googling “Republican gay sex scandal,” and see how often a strong and vocal dislike of homosexuality accompanies a quiet but apparently overpowering love for dick. And the logic there isn’t really that hard to figure out. If there’s something about yourself that you’re terrified of people knowing, then pretend to be really, really against that thing, so people won’t suspect you.
Your intentions weren’t entirely clear to me, which is why I addressed both angles. I’ve known guys who fit both categories, BTW (or all 3?).
Hetero virgin
Closeted gay man
Gay/bi virgin
"
There is a notion that I do not disagree with that there are some, not all, people who are afraid of being tagged as homosexual (whether they have attractions or not), so protest loudly that they hate those kind of people.
It’s an old story - as in Peter loudly denying and cursing Jesus after the crucifixion three times before the cock crowed, to avoid being rounded up by the authorities.
Also, it would make sense that someone who obsesses about what* them homos *are doing may have issues of one form or another with sexuality.
I would venture it’s primary purpose is to kill/wound. Sure, it can be used for show, or for target practice (which then brings us around to why one needs to practice shooting at a target).
I instructed small arms in the army back in the day (post-crossbow, mind); I told my recruits,
“This is your weapon. It is not a tool, you don’t drive a nail or saw a log with it, it is a weapon. Its purpose is to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on another human being, and at some point, your nation may ask you to take up your weapon and do just that: kill or maim another human being. If you can’t deal with that, perhaps you should not be in this line of work.”
Call a spade a spade (and likewise a weapon a weapon). Deal with it.
The Military is a different case than civilian use.
Guns are used for target practice, for collecting, for the Zombie apocalypse, for hunting and others, but damn few are ever used for self defense or to kill another human.
It’s like saying that cars are made for racing.
Better analogy would be “it’s like saying that cars are made for transportation.”
Now, that’s silly. There are people that use cars for racing, for collecting, for escaping the zombie apocalypse…
So, question: if the are rarely used for self defense, then why is it so important that people carry one at all times for self defense?
Regarding General Dynamics wanting to work on an Army of zombies or velociraptors, meh, that could be at least plausible to me, assuming they had a way to undo the zombie/velociraptor threat when the war was over. The thread asks about situations where the motive doesn’t make sense.
Sure, there will be massive civilian casualties, and the weapon may jump borders to neighboring countries in some cases, but if the bad guys are enough of a threat and/or isolated enough geographically. Why not? Let’s pretend it’s WWII, and we somehow DON’T have the technology for an atomic bomb, but DO have the technology for zombies and/or velociraptors. Imagine how many fewer casualties we would have taken in the Pacific fighting the Japanese island to island if we could have just dropped some of those off to clear out the enemy troops for us. Yes, we’d need a way to eradicate them after the fighting was over, and that obviously wouldn’t work in places like China and the Philippines, but if they are confined to an island and don’t swim, you might decide that’s something you are willing to deal with at a later time. After all, you can drop off a few zombies/velociraptors, let them kill the enemy troops, then carpet bomb the island and move in. The zombies/velociraptors don’t shoot back, so they are reasonably easier to deal with from a distance than a human enemy.
Let’s not turn this into yet another gun debate.
I read an article in the Scientific American a few years ago that addressed the psychology of bullying. While popular culture usually portrays bullies as weak, insecure individuals with low self esteem lashing out out of jealousy and fear, the author said that this is the opposite of the truth. The bullies he studied were narcissists, who felt morally superior to their victims-who were chosen because they transgressed some social norm that the bully felt them self to be the righteous protector of.
The author also pointed out that the imagined motives of bullies make no sense; insecure individuals would be unlikely to seek out physical confrontation, after all.
You’re going at it wrong.
It’s not that some husband or boyfriend or father wants his girlfriend/wife/daughter to be unable to obtain an abortion.
It is that some people want SOCIETY to be set up so that girls and women in general do not have sex outside of marriage.
And to accomplish that, they want to set things up so that IF some girl has sex outside of marriage she runs the risk of pregnancy and can’t do anything about it except have the baby and be pointed at and called slut and whore and so on and so forth. Fear of that, they believe, will keep most girls and women on the proper path.
It is, in fact, also the case that some people want SOCIETY to be set up so that boys and men do not get to have sex except as a result of being properly employed. Which mostly means being non-rebelliously subservient and amenable to being bossed around by the older folks who have employment to offer, at least during those troublesome young troublemaker years.
They accomplish that situation by setting things up so that the girls and women are afraid to have sex outside of the context of a male partner who can and will support any babies who come along.
Anything getting clearer for you yet?
I have come to accept that a lot of (maybe “most”) of the rank and file of the pro-life movement are people who are upset at the idea of fetuses being murdered.
It is not true of the leadership. They are not particularly subtle about it. They really do want to make it socially untenable for women to be sexually active (except within the narrow confines of legitimated marriages). In many states they have moved on from abortion to level attacks at birth control, for the same reason.
Cites upon request.
Yeah, people who use this sort of reasoning are applying a good-and-evil-must-be-balanced-out fallacy. The idea is that if someone is bad (bully,) he or she needs something bad to happen to them in order to balance things out and inject some justice into the equation, so let’s believe that deep down he or she struggles with insecurity or is compensating.
I recall reading that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the Columbine school shooters, ***were ***the bullies, not the bullying ***victims ***that school shooters are often imagined or portrayed to be.
I have worked in a bureaucracy, and that’s not at all my experience. Let’s say I react to a perceived danger: I call the office because I see a stranger in the building and think they’re hostile, or I file a DSS report because I believe a child is being abused.
I am FAR, FAR less likely to get in trouble for taking these steps unnecessarily than I am for ignoring signs of a real danger.
This is also obviously true for a case like Benghazi: sending troops just in case, when they weren’t needed, would not at all have resulted in a scandal, whereas not sending troops when they were needed–well, we see where even the rumor of that ended up.
Bureaucracy operates the exact opposite of how you describe, in my experience. If I may coin an expression, better safe than sorry.