The Word for the Concept - Hamasexuality

(To avoid more censorship from Gaagle [a content warning], the word for the concept from which the word homophobia derives has been changed to “hamasexual.”  You can probably figure out what the real word is.  Given that the rest of this post is about using words to change the meaning of them—to make it more difficult for people to communicate—what the censorship has accomplished is quite apt.)

There is no such thing as what is often called hamasexuality.  The thing(s) to which that word refers is/are an impossibility, akin to making a word “updown,” “leftright,” or similar concepts, producing an inherent contradiction.  The practice of commonly using the term “gay sex” or variants, such as having a fictional character speak of homoerotic frictive rubbing as “sex,” is part of the move to normalize referring to impossible things.  

Employing a variant of “happy” to refer to members of a group-by-choice that were prone to intense narcissistic intervals, increased employment of suicide, and, of course, despair, led to the almost ubiquitous usage of the term “gay.”  Similarly, “marriage,” as is now happening with “sex,” has come to refer to an occurrence to which it did not initially refer.  I.e. the word marriage now refers to a formal commitment to an economic- and/or orgasm-partnership.  

(It is entirely sensible that organisms of a meiotic species would feel existential failures as they aged without having produced offspring.  Productive heterosexual unions do this, but occurrences of "gay marriage" necessarily do not.  Like the many other direct problems fundamentally built into opposition to Jesusian Christianity, the impossibility of non-productive-marriage being at all like productive-marriage serves well as an "opposition" to Jesusianism, where a ridiculous conclusion--such as that an all powerful invisible first century rabbi made the world and cares about you--can be used to trick people into thinking it is not ridiculous.  Advocates for rabbi-worship and gay marriage are just different kinds of useful idiots, both having been deceived into believing that a ridiculous thing is not ridiculous because that thing is presented as being against something else ridiculous.)  

The term “marriage” was conceived of to refer to the establishment of an immediate family, which was necessary for forming the child raising—and of course childbearing—arrangements of lifeforms which were absolutely necessary for the continuance of the species known as “humans.”  The importance of the terms “marriage” and “sex” derived from the absolutely essential nature of such concepts for the continuance of the human species.  Naturally, if people should be saved or liberated from the physical world, the continuance of the human species is anathema.  The progression of Christianity has led to “liberals” being so literally antilife that they are hypocritically against the continuance of the species of which they themselves are members.  It is indeed sad that they are so hypocritical and unaware of their own hypocrisy, but it is equally sad that today’s Jesusians strive to be saved from the material world while being just as unaware of how what they support led to the material world being like this.  

(Consider here also how effective the use of Christianity on one side of a dialectic has been for the topic of marriage.  Referring to marriage as related to child-production or -rearing has been so strongly associated with Jesusian Christianity that now the two things seem strongly linked.  So strongly that it seems confusing that a perspective can refer to both marriage being developed for the continuance of the human species and Christianity being stupid.  It didn’t always seem that way, but Christian armies killed enough husbands that it now seems that way.  The deceived farchildren of the conquered victims are so intelligent that they can literally think Deep European genetics will be best served by revering a rabbi of the Middle East.  People saying they are Christian may view it as reprehensible when some politician helps men from the Maghreb rape local girls, but their advocacy of rabbinical universalism is the origin of that exact thing.  The horror, the despicable foulness, of rabbi-worship is supporting that.)  

There are many words which refer to homoerotic frictive rubbing.  The earlier attempt to eliminate—to “socially redress”—awareness of the negative characteristics of highly negative narcissistic types of behavior associated with a desire for the latter was this same thing.  I.e. the employment of a variant of “happy” to refer to people who are far less likely to be happy.  As before, the move is to downplay the negative associations of such behavior—to treat non-species-perpetuation relationships like species-perpetuation relationships.  This indirect attack is the most effective kind.  If species-perpetuation were directly attacked, the attack would be defeated, and the enemies of species-perpetuation eliminated.  To guard against this, the enemies of species-perpetuation damage their target indirectly.  

For a way to understand what is happening, consider the way that the relationship of what are called Black people and White people has changed over the past century and a half in Usica.  Eliminate chattel slavery and grant Black people voting rights.  All good.  But do you think Abraham Lincoln would have felt schools should be integrated?  Communities legally prevented from restricting real property ownership depending on race?  No; of course not, in either case.  Abraham Lincoln, were he alive today, would be considered a repulsive racist for his opinions on these things.  And that’s not even getting into affirmative action.  Regardless of what you feel about that, consider the progression of those types of things.  Sodomy becomes legal, various types of discrimination are outlawed, and then, a few decades later, sodomy becomes celebrated as a loving act.  

(How long until parents just roll their eyes when another MAP [Minor Attracted Person--a 2025 attempt] hits on their eight-year-old daughter at the park?  "Not today, honey, you have that big assignment.  Oh, he'll make the diorama FOR you?  And he guarantees an A?  Hmm..."  Serious--seems impossible, but imagine telling some guy in 1880 that they'll let two buggerers get married in 2020.  Seems impossible to him, too.  MAPs are coming at this rate, and when Jesusians think European nationalism and resistance is best expressed by more people loving a Middle Eastern rabbi, their missing the point is huge.  "You don't deserve me unless you love me more than your family" is the MAPs winning.)  

Things that are viewed today as obviously wrong—as things that no one would possibly support publicly—will not always be so.  In less than a century, sodomy has gone from private/illegal to public/celebrated.  Arrangements of species-perpetuation may one day be viewed with scorn.  Sodomitic orgies may be viewed as responsible, while monogamous pairing may be viewed with disdain.  Respectable: “Oh, these wonderful guys are John, Vince, and Stu, and we can’t leave out dear Harvey!”  Hateful: “This is my wife, Betty.”  

Under Christianity, this type of change happens.  Posit that a certain group of people commits more violent acts than another group of people.  In such a case, Christians claim that the committing of violent acts is caused, not by one group of people having different ways of dealing with situations than another group.  Old P.C.--Jesusianism--says people are all the same, but in truth groups of people are different.  I.e., political correctness says the scourge of racism causes one group to need to lash out, therefore, racism is responsible for a man being driven to mug.  The repurposing of “gay” and “sex” is similar.  

It is worth noting here that subsequent to the establishment of Jesusian Christianity, Europe began to do these things.  Those are Christian things, even though most people who call themselves Christian now would say they are opposed to those things.  Because the progression of the cultural disease of belief in universalism always has an earlier stage where the effects of the disease are less profound, it can falsely and ironically seem that the disease itself is responsible for the good things which happened in spite of it.  I.e. people of Europe in AD900 were less universalist than the people of Europe in CE2000, therefore universalism itself can seem to be cure to universalism.  Such tragic humor is very much an aspect of Christianity.  As spoken of before, there are many people who believe that a widespread commitment to Christianity will itself solve the problems of Christianity.   Those people seem to have evidence backing up their assertion, because the people of Europe in AD900 were indeed less universalist than the people of Europe in CE2000, and Jesusian Christianity was much more socially regarded in AD900.  

Very much a behavior exhibited by White people is to create bad conditions and then further those bad conditions by saying those bad conditions are the cure to those bad conditions.  If you are not familiar with this type of behavior in the medical field, look into the way that the extremely toxic immunosuppressant AZT was prescribed for many to combat a disease that theoretically supressed immune systems, A.I.D.S., thereby killing them by hurting their immune systems so much that they died to disease.  The treatment of Christianity with Christianity is similar.  

As stated, the English lexicon already had available many words which referred to homoerotic frictive rubbing.  “Sodomy” and “buggery” referred to the type of homoerotic frictive rubbing which involved males, the terms used specifically to refer to the employment of the male defecatory orifice in imitation of the female breeding orifice.  Employing a modifier, such as “gay sex,” was also done.  This employment of the male defecatory orifice by buggerers, or of female homos’ manual or oral stimulation of the clitoris, could make orgasms occur.  Orgasms were indeed a common feature of such frictive rubbing, provided by nature to encourage the furthering of offspring.  The deception of "hamasexuality" type has been to individualize things, saying that feelings of pleasure and closeness etc. are what matters rather than the furthering of offspring, the production of which is why were provided for those feelings.  

Understanding had long been achieved.  However, the purpose of “united versality” (now known as “universality”) is to make understanding occur less often, on the way to occurring not at all.  Eliminating the tools that humans employ, in this case words, is a technique commonly employed.  As such, it is now said that there are gay people, and that hamasexuals have sex.  2+2=5, up equals down, left equals right, and sex can be either hamasexual or heterosexual.  The result of this behavior has been the reduction of meaning of the words “sex” and “sodomy.”  

Christianity has even called killing people nice.  For over a thousand years of the history of Christianity, killing people in order to teach the survivors about Jesus was called a good, nice thing to do.  Considering it good to kill people in order to teach liberal democracy is the same thing.  

The elimination of words is similar, in that a bad act is called a good act.  Eliminating words is generally effected through combining them.  Because such behavior involves unification—as done with the elimination of “verse” for a non-musical concept—niceness is claimed.  Eliminating the words that humans use to communicate is not actually nice, but like so many other bad things—killing lots of people to give the survivors the gift of democracy—the presentation is of a nice act.  If anyone recognizes that the act being committed is not nice but is in fact bad, insults are used to reinforce the consensus.  

Returning to basics, why is there no such thing as what is often called hamasexuality?  Because “sex” was conceived of as a word referring to “the act which a man and a woman commit in order to sometimes produce a baby.”  The penetration of the female vulva by the engorged male phallus was found to be extremely important to the reproduction of all types of mammals (humans included), because of the correlation between that type of behavior and offspring.  Humans could, and did, perform many other acts of purposeful frictive rubbing involving physical arousal, orgasms, all or partial nakedness, etc., but “sex” was recognized as a distinct type of behavior meriting its own word.  

“Handjob,” “fricking,” “buttsex,” “blowjob,” “eating out,” etc., were liberally employed, but were of course not “sex.”  No one would have claimed these actions were “sex,” anymore than someone would have claimed up was down.  Very many human pairs, for thousands of years, performed all of these acts.  There was no need to conflate these acts with “sex,” even though these acts were often with sex associated.  A person within a pair desirous of having and/or giving orgasm could perform any one of, or any combination of, such acts.  Indeed, people physically aroused—sexually aroused—by people of the same sex as they themselves could and did perform and refer to such acts without eliminating or misusing human tools of communication.  

The relatively recent usage of hamasexuality is an attack upon all humans who use language, including the ones who seek and/or enjoy mutually un-or-partially-clothed frictive rubbing against other humans of the same sex.  As in other times when it happens, it is decidedly ironic when attacking the means of human communication is presented as a good thing for a particular group of humans.  This is sadly similar behavior to when a revolution is officially called by and for “the common people” when that revolution actually consisted of the vast majority of “the common people” losing resources and a significant number of them suffering pain as well as death.  Any surreptitious pleasures and verbal conveniences had by people of the past who could distinguish between partners and activities is assaulted by the elimination of words.  

For example, a homoerotic-behavior-desiring (call ’em “homo” for simplicity’s sake) man deceptively married may wish to sneakily bugger his manservant, hear a noise that makes him worry, then quickly shut the pantry door and go upstairs to have sex with his wife.  Little nicknames, beguiling references, and so forth, are all eliminated callously by changing the meaning of the word “sex” and forestalling the use of “buggery” by using the word “buggery” instead.  Eliminating the wife, and having it made thought of as normal that the man and his manservant are “married” and “having sex” instead, is, with penultimate irony, an attack on that man and his manservant.  It is also, of course, and attack on the man’s relationship with the wife, but that isn’t important here.  The resulting inability to refer to the many erotic things that the man and his manservant do, and the various relationships they have, inhibits their activities.  

This kind of attack is normal for Christians (universalists).  Consider the Russian Revolution or the expansion of Christianity.  In the former case, the communists had their revolutionary police murdering more than 10,000 lower class people in the claimed pursuit of the lower class’ interests.  In the latter case, Christians murdered more than 10,000 people in the claimed pursuit of pleasing an invisible rabbi in the sky who loved peace.  Like priests getting “disciplined” in completely inadequate ways for touching little boys inappropriately, it is an old joke that Christians would have wars for a “prince of peace.”  What this understanding should birth in you is the realization that it is perfectly normal and habitual for official stories about why terrible things happened to be diametrically opposite people’s claimed agendas.  

It can seem merely a funny little curiosity that people would fight to please a prince of peace.  However, we must remember that this mild perception is referring to horror.  “Haha, they were fighting to make the prince of peace happy!”  Funny, but, “Sorry, Dad’s not coming home ever again; they got him,” and, “Ooh, maybe this will fit up her, too!” are not funny.  The disgustingly atrocious vicissitudes of war abound.  A bloke who tried to defend his village spending six hours leaking blood before he expires.  A girl of 11 sniffling after 40-some scary soldiers used her to satisfy their lust before they thought it was funny to see if their sword handles fit up there.  Maybe it was all in the past and we shouldn’t think about that kind of stuff.  But what happens when it’s the 21st century and some baby is crying 14 hours after the fighter-bombers turned its house into rubble and killed mommy and daddy with shrapnel very similar to that which ripped those little holes in the baby’s torso that won’t stop hurting even though some of the blood got hard and made the rest stop leaking?  We will never know the details of what happened in Assyria and Egypt, but at least still generally remember there was a Roman Empire once.  Ever since universalism popped up in Rome, and some Romans warned that it was going to destroy the empire, this has been known but unpopular to bring up.  That warning found voice in Rome because it had happened before, not because the Romans who said that were lone gunmen.  

Back to the lexicon associated with homoeroticism.  The inhibition—this attack—can seem minor, but consider the number of different words people use.  Consider, even, how incredibly important, or how arousing, it may be to that pair of people (the rich homo and his manservant homo) to refer to the different things that they do.  As ever, we note how the effectiveness of the successful attacks lies in their presentation—their presentation as good, nice things of justice rather than as concepts to which no moral meaning is attached.  

Some boss not wanting to promote anyone who would engage in frictive rubbing with another person of the same sex is having some percentage effect on a so-desiring person’s life.  By contrast, altering, for let us say 50 years, six ways that person and their multitude of partners can refer to things they often do, is having some percentage effect on that person’s life.  Whether or not one quantity is larger (more negative; a bigger bad) is a separate argument.  The utility of language is such that the censor presenting her or his doings as nice may be having the greater effect, but again that is a separate argument.  For here, what is important to remember is that the different things to which language refers differently remain different, even if the language that refers to them is itself mutilated.  

Hamasexuals may be gay, get married, and have sex with each other exactly as much as leftrighters may updown.  However, modern culture has made clear that you suck for giving people weird looks when they say they are gay, married to their same-sex partner, or whichever new one comes up.  But, whatever you are supposed to say, language is just a tool, not the things themselves.  Just like Jesus can't make a rock so big He can't move it no matter how much people talk about Him, it doesn't change.