Genders and Sexual Orientation

I have to some extent covered this stuff in a more up-to-date page here.

It is important in this that the heterogeneity there is between the genders is basically about different ways of being neglectful about care about heterogeneity's good sides. This type of heterogeneity is difficult to preserve  -  and it can be used, at times against heterogeneity of other kinds. This makes it all the more important, in sexual contexts, to care for that heterogeneity works for completion rather than rivalry, as discussed here.

As most of us know, there is a fundamental difference between the   -  human (and most other mammalian)  -  genders in that one of the chromosome pairs differs. It is the the pair that is sometimes called XX for females and XY for males. Both of these pairs are rather unique in the basic structure. The XY consists of two fairly different chromosomes, while each of out other chromosome pairs consist of two similar ones. It is on the other hand more similar to them in one sense than the female gender chromosome pair XX is. This is because that XX has is quite exceptional in having much X-inactivation to it.

One gender difference that I personally experience there to be, is that females are both tend to restrain themselves with more ease than males, who instead pertain, generally speaking, to more discipline for it, I think. Such discipline is very often counteractive for a male when he wants to break free from over-belief, which can, but doesn't have to, be in himself  -  to the extent there is not any stronger belief to be formed against the one to break free from. But it is of help to the extent there is one.

Before we continue, to make things clear about the numbers I've used below -  and to the extent you didn't know it already  -   they reflect attitudes in the way that this blog is about, the main rules of which which I hope I have managed to outline well enough here. Moreover, much of what I have written below relates more or less to what I have on this post, especially meaning and three. Although not as well-described as three in the main text there, most of the other numbers, too, can be found in that list there, though not twenty-four. It is, however, just one full meaning step  from twenty-four, which is on that list.

It should be mentioned, of course, our two genders are about heterogeneity, reproduction, sexuality and evolution. I believe that each gender's sexuality contains an antidote, a cure  -  or at least like a measure  -  against hypnotic repression.(or hypnosis by repression). Two different version antidote against such  -  very troublesome  -  hypnosis can be quite necessary for the meaning of a species' existence, I think  Females tend to accept that type of hypnosis a bit more than males, while males cure it with risk for another type of hypnosis, which is half-cured by the traits of the Y-chromosome, I think. This difference between the genders I have described a little more where at that post about hypnosis.

Anyway, as can be seen where the link in the first paragraph leads to, X-inactivation means that the X-chromosomes turn each other off. As also seen there, there is in placental mammals (including us humans, of course) a randomized calico pattern about which X-chromosome is inactivated. Such simple extremes of on and off indicates for me that it is about simple two-fold dissociation (or so to speak), which exists in two versions, yielding a four from those two twos, I think .That is just about the only four there can be to a mammalian heritage, I believe. Because, I think, genetic  -  and probably even protein-based -  traits contain only live certainties, so to speak  -  and cannot be found in a mere two, four or six, for example. This is so, I believe, since there cannot be safety to assume meaning in anything that does not emphasize three as adequate in a meaning sense, I believe. An adequate meaning sense of three is almost only the meaning-step sense (see link in the cursive paragraph above).

In male heritage, there is thus no four, and thereby a man tends strongly not to understand female points of view when they are spontaneous in a way that reflects their chromosome structure. In a way, similarly, though, there is in the Y-chromosome an essence of belief in the eighty-three as a spy on twenty-nine (and vice versa! See also here), and a seven as the tool of that eighty-three for emphasizing meaning of 128, which in turn is an emphasis upon necessity as an end in itself. This I have, as mentioned above, related to as discipline, which I know is a simplification, but which I hope can be understood as at least fairly appropriate. This often results in lack of understanding between the genders, something I've tried to describe here.

In the X-chromosome there are genes that carry various traits. I believe that one of the most emphasized traits there is the one reflected by thirteen times two, i.e. twenty-six. To an lesser, but still important extent, there is also emphasis on forty-one and eleven. The thirteen is not multiplied by two in the genes themselves, I think, but only in the female X-chromosome structure. Meanwhile, the male Y complex has an extra  -  and rather important  -  emphasis upon forty-one. Both forty-one and twenty-six stand for there to be meaning about fourteen, and they thereby are both rather important for our reproduction  -  both the sexuality and the heterogeneity of it. But so is also the smartness for rendering a twenty-nine be strong enough to spite that it is evil, and that it can be helped with by use of the 107, which is the meaning step that follows upon twenty-nine, active factor of a 203, which in sexuality is created by an X-chromosome. This is usually done in a male much by copying the smart and constant Y-chromosomal tendency, but in a female more by alternating the two X-chromosomal tendencies for it, as to copy each other, I think. This difference in how to use the X-chromosome thirteen is bridged in males mostly by forty-one-based intuition for heterogeneity and in females mostly by twenty-six-based such intuition, I think.

The 107 automatically specifies a twenty-six, but only semi-automatically anchors for specification of a forty-one. But either twenty-six and forty-one can forestall 107. The forestalling is a bit ineffective, however, except for when the likenesses between either of them with the 107 is emphasized, which can be done by an eighty-three. This is so because the factors of eighty-three, three twos and one three can be related to either the 107 or the twenty-six or the forty-one. Since the eighty-three is simpler than the 107 and twenty-six and forty-one each is simpler than that, either one of them can forestall effectively to the extent eighty-three is available for it. Either twenty-six or forty-one can independently anchor for an eighty-three. Though the forty-one is clearly more effective for it, still even the twenty-six that I feel certain is there in any ordinary X-chromosome can do that fairly well too.

This makes it easier for a male heterosexual interest to be combined with lesbian interest than vice versa, because male tendency for heterogeneity endeavor is much more based on that forty-one anchors eighty-three. And the forty-one can as described earlier also work (though indirectly) as an anchor for 107. However, it seems, such a male-female combination calls for for a male, who wants to pertain to it, to rival other male interests for it. I guess the reason for this is in numbers that the forty-one is necessary for establishing a relationship with each such female (since those interests, in lesbians, usually are more or less interdependent), and thereby too preoccupied to also level with other males. Also it is because it thereby at the very least least sort of acknowledges the 107, which thereby poses a threat to them. Usually, I think, such a forty-one also anchors, indirectly, the 107.

Do note, though, that the 107 in itself does not directly promote homosexuality. But in a sense it necessitates it. That is as heterogeneity is hindered by it, so is heterosexuality. Homogeneity can to some extent work as a substitute for heterogeneity (although the two are actually meant to cooperate). In the same kind of fashion, homosexuality can substitute for heterosexuality, which, when with 107, tends to usually become evil by having its heterogeneity corrupt.

It is by means of enhancing sex with homogeneity that homosexuality comes to be. But that enhancement can be done heterosexually. It is when heterogeneity is counteracted and homogeneity is the only good enhancement of sex. From that situation homosexuality springs.

Usually it, homosexuality, involves that the by-nineteen-specified six preludes not only to the directly sexual eleven and twenty-nine, but also to the anti-heterogeneity 107, which thereby is semi-transformed into a 101.  There is in this, however, still a 107 there, just like there is still a twenty-nine, only semi-transformed into twenty-three, and an eleven only semi-transformed into five. In 101 one has the essence of the very common gay aspect of homosexual attitudes and so. Similarly it seems, twenty-three causes attitudes of playing with deviance, and so, that can be seen in homo- and other sexual subcultures.

Those who pertain to doing the 107 and/or 29 attitude(-s) without penitence to homogeneity control that renders them 101 and/or 23, respectively, are clearly meaner about their claims for either sex or whatever else they might be into of power surge or so. Many, however feel they cannot trust such surges and so to be more of their benefit than that they want to totally accept them. This can be so even if thy are stuck with them (perhaps because of bad karma or so). Whatever the reason for being stuck with it, a fairly good solution to problems they cause is to counter them with the mentioned homogeneity aspirations.

Anyway, the female-hetero and male-gay equivalent is about that rendering that the heterogeneity of twenty-six is of meaning, in numbers ninety-seven (the first meaning step upon twenty-six) specifies a twenty-three, which in turn specifies a seven, which in turn specifies a two, which through those three specifications can anchor 107 (which is the third level of ingratiation upon six. For males the three steps are the specification of eleven, that eleven's specification of three, and that three's in-between value simulation of two, which uses the invisible one factor of the three.). To the extent a female twenty-six preludes a twenty-six that does that, it is about trying to fetch the male for so-to-speak 'his own purposes'  -  meaning, I think, that she wants him to be the hetero male that is sort of homo all the time while at the same time saying that hetero sex is meaningful exactly with her, and thereby to dismiss her rivals. Because the ninety-seven renders twenty-six as meaningful, it is hardly the target for 107, which makes it  -  at least sort of  -   easier for female to be rendered as okay when she aspires for male homosexuality to support her female heterosexuality.

But, this evens out just a little about who gets the smartness for pertaining to the heterogeneity that disturbs the heterogeneity of others of one's own gender, and who gets the smartness for pretending as if nothing about that heterogeneity inclination would be a response against that one (or possibly those few) member (-s) of that other gender. Because, either way, whatever the gender of the person anchoring, or in some other way standing for, a tendency of 107, the target specification of that 107 still targets the more female type rather than the clearly more male type of belief in heterogeneity. Thereby females are in that sense more easily rendered to become anti-heterogeneity. If a 107 tendency that disturbs females from being heterogeneously inclined is anchored in some kind of care for heterogeneity, such as forty-one and/or (the meaning step from) twenty-six, that anchorage disturbs anti-heterogeneity tendencies from being complete. As it disturbs male forty-one less female twenty-six, it disturbs males less than females. But it strengthens the competition more among the heterogeneously inclined, consequently mostly among males. This is why harems, with many females and only one male, or so, are much more common than those with the gender roles reversed.

Or, actually, no that is not so. Because when that control over heterogeneity is based upon twenty-nine, then it is more inclined to anchor than to specify itself. This is so due to that when it is to be done without meaning steps, anchoring is much easier than specifying. This, in turn, is because it is not the anchoring, but the specification that requires thoroughness, so anchoring for specification with or without a meaning step to it, is comparatively easy. It is effective as well as easy if the specification it anchors is done with a meaning step. Such anchoring provides for the females that are meaninglessly into sex with many gay men. I.e. the gender roles described above are fairly much reversed.

The above is fairly much (at least) partly because it is male much more than female, usually, to be sophisticated and smart about handling a twenty-nine. Because, it is a male, not female, inborn quality to associate twenty-nine with discipline, thereby certifying that discipline to be viewed as real in all circumstances. In order to cope with that discipline as her own, that female might extravagantly show her support for the twenty-nine, by being into the forty-four to be inspired (or "anchored" as I have been calling it) by it. That extravagance is fairly often linked to her, and thereby his sexuality, which is what is seen in for example porn. Either way, the twenty-nine is usually used more skilfully by males, which is a reason males can more often know what's going on when evil is about. I believe, that is, that a male is less unlikely to be unable to spot and perhaps even handle a psychopath. But then a male is also (according to some statistics) clearly more likely to be one. 

I also, to at least some extent, tend to believe the following:
Sexuality is an eleven-aided process of simulation is about that eleven's specification of three can stretch an aided attitudes specification a point, to target that aided attitudes own prelude, which (since that prelude is meaning-supported by that attitude), forms a memory, sort of, of it. The twenty-nine-aided process of simulation is about that twenty-nine's specification of eight can involve a certain type of hypnotism for simulating the specification that the aided attitude is the direct prelude for. It is totally different to say that any hypnotism could do that, because easy hypnotism is not to be counted on for that. Rather this is about concentrated hypnotism, which is formed by twenty-nine. It can also be formed by the eleven that has been aided to working like a twenty-nine. Similarly a twenty-nine that has been aided by an eleven can work as an eleven. The cooperation between these two processes is the basis for our sexuality, and the main reason that it pertains to two genders, usually.

Homosexuality does not very much pertain well enough to both those two processes to be sexual unless also supported by a 107, which is one meaning step above twenty-nine. But the result of 107 can also be corrupt heterogeneity (see link above) that yields evils that can be hetero- and/or homo-sexual! Some, but not all homosexuality spring from attempting to counteract such evil by means of homogeneity, which can in itself be used to promote sexuality. But extravagance to that sexuality renders the homogeneity corrupt. It can do so by its control over its specification target, six, which preludes both eleven and (thereby) twenty-nine, which thereby can be steered to for example sexuality. Partly therefore, nineteen is also good at enhancing sexuality's charming and good parts, which spring from the 259 control over the evils of 256-based hypnosis. Except for being able to steer six to good sexuality, nineteen can, when it is sexually inclined, also anchor a sixteen as a prelude to 259, and thereby the 259 itself. ...

Anyway, the 107 obstructs heterosexuality, by targeting (specifying as unworthy of being an end in itself) two ways of promoting it. One is forty-one, the other twenty-six. The latter is the 107's own specification target, and the former one is targeted by that 107 (from prelude twenty-nine) anchors specification of it by a meaning step from forty-four to 191. Since both of these targets of 107 are about supporting fourteen, which is into heterogeneity that promotes mutual care, and which if supported (at least the seven of it) as meaningful does (I believe) promote heterogeneity that is into mutual understanding, and thus bridges  -  for example  -  the gender gap effectively. More than caring heterogeneity, a fourteen, a seven times two, provides an incitement for anchoring sexuality in that it specifies that sevens anchorage to a second level with preserved first level (more generalistic) anchorage of that seven, meaning anchorage of mostly eleven. Even so, 107 can also be used heterosexually, and/or homosexually, for sadism.

When it is there one needs to focus all the more on the nineteen, in order to stay moral. This doesn't put back heterogeneity; i.e. one still cannot quite relate to those different, at least in the context of sex. ...

Another aspect of it is, mostly, though, I think, that when someone is about sexual interest in dismissal at the same time, of the same person, then this interest is into using 107 for pretending to be worth both seeming to be what that target person should want, and to be the one to have every right to reject that person. Very often this results in the double-standard moralization against the benefits of sex, usually as being something that should be reserved for a privileged few, or so, and normalization for the sake of their own sexuality. But that type of dismissal can be counteracted a bit by homogeneity, which also can rather much on its own be used to guide other aspects of sexuality both to alleviation from too much direct evil to it, and moreover to smarter control over the repression based hypnosis that is to be ruled, I think, for the sexual alleviation that most of us crave sometimes.

But homogeneity can very well be used without being anti-heterogeneous  -  and indeed it is. Because homogeneity is what makes sexuality inclined for the type of clear-mindedness that comes from orgasms and/or other sexual pleasures. This comes from that what's left of sexuality's twenty-nine (otherwise plain evil) that is unspecified by nineteen, is twenty-three, which is about (more than deviance, as I have stated about it here) clarifying the values that pertain to alternatives and thus choices about freedom, spirit and soul. Also, and almost as importantly, it springs from that it can influence eleven (otherwise basically plain evil falsehood) to become much more like five, which pertains mostly to spirit  -  or you might say stability of freedom and so. But this hardly ever holds true if that sexuality is also too extravagantly into sex appeal as the essence of virtue to stay with utilitarianism as the main essence of .homogeneity. ... But sometimes the eleven is too subordinated the nineteen and its anchoring five for that to be a total problem, even in sex.

It should perhaps be pointed to, anyway, homosexuality of other types can be, and is very often, about scrutinizing against the opposite gender's potential evils, respectively. Usually, however, the blatantly sexual (male or female) gay are into using either, actually, an ingratiation-step support for twenty-nine, or perhaps an inclination for step-less ingratiation, of the type that, as I mentioned above, is based upon techniques of the 203. These I intend to describe, but I haven't gotten to it yet.