Irvin, who says he learned his brother was gay in the 1970s when he found him wearing women's clothes, speculates that the discovery contributed to his womanizing behavior, according to ESPN and other news outlets that have seen the article.
"Through it all we realized maybe some of the issues I've had with so many women, just bringing women around so everybody can see, maybe that's the residual of the fear I had that if my brother is wearing ladies' clothes, am I going to be doing that? Is it genetic?" Irvin says in the article.
Denmark Vesey said ...
Peep the meme: Because Irvin liked women ... and had relationships with many women ... he "speculates" he may have been trying to "cover up" his true ... gay .. nature?
No.
Irvin liked pussy. He was a rich black ballplayer. Irvin got pussy.
Since when did having sex with women become a symptom of homosexuality?
So, he found his older brother wearing women's clothes. Of course he was disturbed by it. His brother was mentally ill. What was he supposed to do ... take him to Victoria's Secret and throw a party for him?
Irvin (and the consumers of this corporate media meme) is being taught to "accept" his brother's mental illness instead of caring about him and treating it like any other mental illness.
Hegelian Head Fake.
Normalizing homosexuality is an attack upon heterosexuality. (depopulation)
The NWO is reformatting reality. Bad is now good. Lies are now the truth. The unhealthy is now the healthy. The abnormal is now the normal. Gay is now straight and straight is gay.
These Satanic secular technocrats got these pork and starch eatin' Plantation Negros all jacked up in the head.
.
16 comments:
Irvin (and the consumers of this corporate media meme) is being taught to "accept" his brother's mental illness instead of caring about him and treating it like any other mental illness.
Isn't it also okay to "accept" someone's mental illness? As in "I accept the fact that my brother has schizophrenia/depression/OCD."
I assume the article also makes clear Irvin cares about his brother, although I could be wrong.
Another question, how do you treat "other mental illness"? Should his brother and other transvestites be given some sort of chemotherapy, or psycholanalysis? Should he have a nutritionist redesign his diet? Pray for him? Shun him?
What does that mean, "treating it like any other mental illness?"
I hope you and yours are all well.
I don't think Irvin was saying he was trying to cover-up, but more trying to make-up for what he thought might be genetic. Does "liking pussy" make it ok to womanize?
Cool with me if he is willing to open a discussion about his brother...I get it....but it is totally beyond me as to why the hell he'd play dress up and pose shirtless for that mag.
Dude is gay too....or there's really something to his being brainwashed...
Another question, how do you treat "other mental illness"? phx
Well P, you treat mental illness ... like ... a mental illness.
As opposed to a "Group Identity".
Homosexuality was considered by the American Psychiatric Association a psychological disorder for over 100 years.
In 1973 ... after political pressure ... they "voted" on it and changed the classification of homosexuality from a disorder to a "preference".
(Any scientific consensus arrived at via voting is not in the least bit scientific)
The problem of losing sight of the fact that homosexual behavior is evidence of a physical and chemical imbalance, is that the effort to achieve balance is abandoned.
Imbalance is "accepted".
Anything built on an unbalanced foundation will eventually collapse.
When a person is "Ill" ... your aim is to make them "Well".
If Michael Irvin "accepts" his brother wearing women's clothing ... his brother will not be made well.
He will be a big grown ass black man sitting up somewhere in a peek-a-boo cammasol.
Sick. Unhealthy. Unfulfilled.
Crazy as a straight banana.
Does "liking pussy" make it ok to womanize?
1) "Womanize"?
I don't know what that means.
Strikes me as one of those fake words made up by feminists.
It implies that the women who were with Michael Irvin were somehow 'victims'.
As if Woman A was stunned to learn the existence of Woman B and Woman B was traumatized to learn the existence of Woman Z.
Them ho's knew what was up.
They knew Mike was involved with many women.
Probably made some of them want him more.
2) "Does "liking pussy" make it ok to womanize?" Cash Rulz
I don't know what "ok" means.
Is it "smart"? Is it "healthy"? That's a different question.
"Is it ok" is some social engineering Thought Police shit I'm not with.
Would I recommend Michael's lifestyle to one of my sons?
No.
Do I consider Michael unwell?
Hell no.
Poor taste.
But not sick.
Mankind would disappear if men didn't have an intense desire to have sex with women.
That drive is important.
Hmm, with that oily photo spread - one has to wonder if he is really just "supporting" his brother - or coming out himself??
On the real man. Why would you have to pose like a "wide receiver" on a gay rag just to support your brother? Maybe he has been overcompensating this whole time!
yeahhhhh that oiled up photo is soooooo questionable lol but I'm sure they put all kinds of pressure on him to do it.
But I do believe it was you who said men who ravaged countless numbers of women were...default homos?
I tend to think this is its own perversion. If having sex with NO women is one extreme, having sex with lots of women is definitely the other end.
How many is "a lot of women"? It's much easier to quantify 0. "A lot" or "too many"? How many is "too many"? It depends on what the man can responsibly handle and still take care of the rest of his responsibilities.
Obviously, if you are filthy rich, and also have great time management skills, you could probably handle having quite a few more women at one time than a middle class guy or a dead broke man.
I think the Mormons originally had it right, before they had a "convenient revelation" that plural marriage was no longer okay with the Good Lord if it meant Utah wasn't gonna get Statehood. Monogamy is not necessarily the default setting or the best course--for men or women. Acknowledging that folks can actually genuinely be sexually and spiritually attracted to more than one mate and that, with the right cultural understandings and acceptance of responsibility on the part of the parties involved, it could work quite well for everyone. Except for the guy with no chick whatsoever.
I think the talking points that people have unquestionably internatlized have really effed up an understanding of reality. The folks that say homosexuality is a choice (as if it's as easy to decide to be guy as it is to decide to eat pancakes instead of Cheerios one morning for the hell of it) and the other side that wanna say it's genetically pre-determined are both leaving out a whole lot of data that muddies their arguments. That's the biggest headfake in all that. Read the work of Jose Delgado--you can find it online--back in the early 60's, he was sticking electrodes in people's heads to manipulate their feelings and behavior. In one case, he stuck an electrode in a boy's head and by exciting certain parts of his brain, had the boy coming on to him. At least, that's my read of what Delgado did as he reports it in his book "Toward a Psychocivilized Society." This was the early 60's. Now stop and ponder what is probably possible today without having to stick anything into somebody's head. The default sexuality of most people is heterosexuality, but sexuality is malleable. Doesn't mean it is as easy to change someone's sexuality as it is to get them to change the color of socks they wear in the morning, but the idea that either it's a super easy flip choice or that it is genetically hardwired and cannot be changed--those are false. Is there an incentive to alter human sexuality in such a way that more people end up homosexual than otherwise would have been given the default? And is there a way to do it that's more subtle and effective than Delgado's brain implants way back in the early 60's? Those are some questions.
I'd hazard the guess that the incidence of homosexuality in humans, as well as other primates, is pretty stable over time with very little fluctuation. Might be worth checking to see if that hunch has any scientific data to recommend it. If so, then it might be interesting to see if the incidence of homosexuality in the human population has been fluctuating much in the past, oh, say sixty years in a way that can't reasonably be simply chalked up to "well people are just more open about admitting these things nowadays."
Homosexuality is something that naturally occurs in many mammalian species from what I've read, but is pretty rare. I don't think it's necessarily an illness even if it is, by definition, abnormal. If it is becoming more common, then one has to wonder, though...What's going on?
This is pertinent to the conversation, by the way. From an article in psychology today about wierd effects of porn addiction, called "Straight Men, Gay Porn and Other Brain Map Mysteries":
"Along the same lines, heavy porn users sometimes notice that as tolerance builds for their earlier tastes, they move in new directions in their search for intense arousal. Instead of seeking porn that accords with their former brain maps, many seek out what shocks them—perhaps because "forbidden" and "fear-producing," when combined with sexual arousal, offer a bigger brain chemical kick...at least for a time. Each shift wires the new tastes into the brain.
...Completely unanticipated sexual tastes can arise. More than one poor guy who has been straight all his life, and who honestly believes he is still straight, has arrived at my website shaken by the fact that gay porn is suddenly compelling. Is this just latent homosexuality? Maybe not, because the dial doesn't necessarily stop at gay porn. One man went from straight porn, to gay porn, to porn themes of heterosexual domination and sexual hypnosis. Others are traumatized to find themselves moving from fantasizing to acting out porn scenarios, as the buzz from mere video flags.
Does hypersexuality play a role in these changes? Consider the various instances of alterations in sexual tastes (from heterosexual to homosexual) in patients given dopamine agonist drugs for Parkinson's and restless legs. In some, the high-dopamine drugs, or perhaps the drug-induced hypersexuality, caused uncharacteristic sexual tastes—until their meds were adjusted."
So there, in one article, you see porn addiction sometimes leading to straight men suddenly taking an interest in homosexual sex; and also the effect dopamine drugs can have in some instances on sexual orientation. I think that's one side-effect of pharmaceuticals that you won't hear the voice over guy announcing in one of those drug ads on TV any time soon!
"Warning, may cause drowsiness, restless leg syndrome, sudden homosexual urges in previously heterosexual males..."
Again, heterosexuality is the default for most people (for a minority homosexuality is their default), but that default sexual orientation is malleable.
I GET IT. BUT:) WHY? SLOW NEWS DAY.YOU ARE A PHD. NOT A 20 SOMETHING....
DV - "Would I recommend Michael's lifestyle to one of my sons?
No."
That was all I was saying.
However, this picture is gay as hell!!!
@cadevo
A lot of women is a lot of women, whether you're rich, poor or somewhere in between.
As far as actual numbers, you know I can't answer that but I think the perversion has little to do with how much a man can handle. That would be likening the experience to lifting heavy machinery or boxes. Because I can manage hauling (collecting) over a dozen bags (women), I've decided to carry large loads throughout life. Not quite the same.
However, if it were possible to take a head count of everyone's partners then we would have a national average wouldn't we? lol. Of course that's not gonna happen. So a lot is a lot. And a man knows when he has a lot. Because he says so and secretly judges his own character. Like Mr. Irving here.
I agree with DV's overall pt here though.
The Satanists are implanting the meme that, "if you love women, you are really overcompensating for actually being gay."
Eventually, they will plant memes to cover every base so that every guy will become gay/bi (like the trendy bi girls now). And any guy who is not gay/bi will be deemed abnormally square and even homophobic.
@ O. Mahogany
I don't think "collecting bags" in greater number is the same as falling in love with, choosing to connect with and to responsibly support, more than one sexual/spiritual/romantic partner. To me, that's just a feminist canard. A straw man. Are there men that think like that? Of course there are. Doesn't negate the fact that many men are predisposed to fall in love with and seek to nurture, commune with and, yes, protect more than just one woman. And the same natural predisposition exists in some women, too.
Glad you brought his up. I remember too, DV you saying this as well, fact when you mentioned this I understood the the issue of excessive or imbalance behaviors.Thanks for that insight.
"But I do believe it was you who said men who ravaged countless numbers of women were...default homos?"
I have also shared this with many women and men and they cannot justify nor explain why they do what they do when it comes to their sexual appetities. Something is off balance.
Liberals specialize in using the slippery slope.
What's first tolerated...becomes trendy...and then mainstream...and then the expected norm
So, in 20 years, it will be expected for men to fuck men
Post a Comment