Rex
12d ago
I doubt anyone else will offer this advice, but here it goes. He should approach this like a man would have approached it for all of human history until like the the last 10 minutes. Find a woman, have a family, and whack off to your gay porn/golden shower fantasies in the actual shower every morning.
The modern approach to homosexuality is so incredibly self indulgent. Maybe the thought of wife and kids is horrific to a young gay man. But consider the alternative - ending up an old queen, alone, no legacy, dwindling family.
The idea that one needs to orient their entire life around a sexual preference is disordered - no matter what that preference is.
I hear there are effective treatments these days too. CBT and/or Jesus.
I mean all of this sincerely. There’s likely no one else offering this advice.
Rex
14d ago
If you listen to Mike Duncan’s History of Rome podcast, it’s amateur history done well. The conversational format that summarized his work was done well, even though it still caters more to junk food intellectualism. His work hasn’t been received well by historians. Academics that have read The Storm Before the Storm for instance have reviewed it and said “… he’s just aping what Appian and Plutarch have said…” “Pop” history isn’t “history.” In fact, actual “history” is very boring IMO. It’s learning foreign languages, academics debating dry, arcane details that are inaccessible to the understanding of a lay audience. So even then, it’d be unfair and biased for me to knock on Rogan, because I also enjoy people like Duncan, despite knowing much of what he’s done is flawed.
Are you sure about this or just convinced by their argument? I think academics are arguing in bad faith here. I think they’re insanely jealously of people like Duncan. These “amateurs” that are able to get an audience and minor celebrity while they toil away. I sense extreme resentment. I don’t know if Mike Duncan’s history is good or bad from a technical perspective. I do know I don’t trust an academic to assess it fairly.
Not to derail things. But how true is this? I know people say that. But i find it hard to believe someone would commission, publish and report on a study that says Catholic abstinance sexed in fact reduces pregnant, harm, whatever.
I know you said “not teaching about sex” which is a straw man version of the argument.
I have no idea. But I could easily imagine how a religious abstinence approach is superior to the modern public school insanity that is sex and gender.
More options
Context Copy link