tynta
Bannon was wondering why Disney and leftists want to talk gender to your kids in Kindergarten.
Believe I figured that out last week.
Their pedo marxist sex science says there's a "lovemap" formed between the ages of 5 and 8.
That could be one reason why they are freaking out over this bill since they can't access the kids to program them before 8yo
While searching for a connection between the deviant transgender harvard fag and one of the Crits, wound up at this DoD archive discussing homos in the military, early 90s. the search hit found both John Money and the Crit in a large text file of numerous documents. Not relalted in this search but the John Money portion mentions one of the goals and may explain the homo freakout over the Don't Groom Our Kids Bill in Florida. The pedos "scientists" think there's a window
of oppurtunity to fagwash kids between the ages of 5 and 8.
> https://archive.org/stream/Misc-DoD/MWG%20Files%201%20to%2020_djvu.txt
As discussed in the previous section of this report, the "triune"
brain of the human includes the limbic structure. This structure is the
"old. mammalian" brain which represents 174 the "horse" in us. All of our
mammal cousins have a similar brain with similar functions, including
the control of our senses of smell and taste and our sexual activity.
In all mammals, including man, the limbic brain governs three activities
that are never found in reptiles: 1) childish, seemingly purposeless
play; 2) nurturingand grooming behavior;and 3) the isolation sounds an
animal makes when it is separated from its group. Aside from lust,
rage, and fear, all of which are generated in the reptilian brain, most
human emotions are derived from these three behaviors common to all
mammals and rooted in the mammalian brain: playing, caring, and pining.
'''The human animal has the distinction of being the only animal that
complicates the biological act of reproduction with the condition of
love.'' It turns the somewhat commonplace, necessary animal behavior of
sexual reproduction into magic and poetry. –According to Dr. John
Money– 175 , "If the people who wrote love songs were true to human
anatomy, they'd be writing songs not about the heart or even the eyes,
but about the hypothalamus." We know that the "feeling" of being in
love begins deep in the brainin the pea-sized hypothalamus. This dense
little cluster of nerves, weighing only a quarter of an ounce, controls
hundreds of bodily functions, including sexual activity. "My theory,"
says John Money, "is that the nerve pathways produce substances that
induce what people refer to as falling in love." According to Money,
the way to a man's heart, and to a woman's is through the hypothalamus.
Early in life, pleasurable stimuli such as contact with our parents
"trigger the release of opioids, " which in turn sedate the anxiety of
separation when mother or father walks out of the room. We become
addicted to these infusions of sedative and, in later life, search for
relationships that provide them 17 ^.
John Money 177 says that –each of us has in his or her head a
"lovemap" that's drawn sometime between the __ages of five and eight and
is based on early experiences with parents, siblings, relatives, and the
outside environment. This lovemap determines who attracts us
erotically.It's "a pattern in your brain that's going to tell you what
is the perfect love affair and who is the perfect person to fall in love
with. Although we don't know much about the process, it's likely that
the broad outlines of the lovemaps are sketched in our genes. We come
into the world wanting certain relationships. The outline may be as
broad as that. The details, blond hair, hairy or 'sensitive, ' remain to
be filled in.” Money suggests that the process can be compared to the
"imprinting" of newborn animals on their mothers. Soon after birth, a
young animal is genetically prepared to attach itself emotionally to —
"imprint" on — a mother figure. Usually, because she's there and taking
care of it, the newborn attaches to its real mother. But not
necessarily. If another animal, even a human being, is around at the
right time, the time when the newborn's genetic clgck tells it to
imprint, the newborn will attach itself to the other animal. In humans,
the time for attachment is more flexible than it is for most animals.
The fact that humans have an inordinately long time of dependency during
childhood, an impressive opportunity exists to develop a profound and
lasting attachment to our parents. Often, this interminable childhood
encourages us to become obsessed with one of our parents. "'Mother' is
the first person to fulfill our needs and she is the first with whom we
'fall in love.' She protects us, cares for us, provides all the
satisfactions we crave. So as adults men tend to look around for the
perfect mother forever and find someone who resembles her — or
sometimes, if their experiences with her were bad, someone who is
reassuringly unlike her." In the same way,- women often search for men
who are like (or unlike) their father.
Given this background, what is the evidence for an environmental
explanation of homosexuality? ==Dr. John Money 178 claims that "Every one
of us has a homosexual side,== in the sense that ’we can be attracted by
both sexes.*" He attributes this element of bisexuality in all of us to
the fundamental bisexuality of the human fetus. Recall that for the
first few weeks after conception, the fetus is both male and female, and
Money believes that it continues to carry the legacy of that bisexuality
even after it begins to differentiate according to its chromosomal sex.
"No matter what we become," says Dr. Money, "male or female, we always
carry with us some hint of our early bisexual (both-sexed) nature.
Female genital organs contain vestiges of male structures, and vice
versa." This view is not universally accepted, however.
These people are fucking sick
>https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Lovemap
A lovemap is a concept originated by John Money to assist a discussion of why people like what they like sexuoerotically. According to Money, it is "a developmental representation or template in the mind and in the brain depicting the idealized lover and the idealized program of sexuoerotic activity projected in imagery or actually engaged in with that lover."[1]
A lovemap can be shaped by both positive and negative factors, things that attract or repel the person whose erotic tastes are being mapped. For reasons that are not always easy to understand, one person may be attracted to people of a particular gender, with a particular physical characteristic, with particular personality traits, and so forth. One may also find certain characteristics so threatening or objectionable that it strongly mitigates against an erotic attraction being manifested.
A lovemap can be shaped by environmental factors that facilitate the formation of an erotic bond, or that enhance or diminish erotic response. For instance, some people may bond strongly to people with whom they share a crisis situation. Some people may find their erotic responses muted in the presence of intimidating environmental factors (observant elders or nosy neighbors, for instance).
Origin
According to Money, the word lovemap was first used in 1980 in an article entitled: “Pairbonding and Limerence”. Before this time, as he states, Money began to talk about lovemaps, in precursory form, with his students in lectures. The seed for this concept can be found in his 1980 book "Love and Lovesickness: the Science of Sex, Gender Difference and Pairbonding”, where on page 65 he states:
“There is a rather sophisticated riddle about what a boyfriend (or girlfriend) and a Rorschach inkblot have in common. The answer is that you project an image of your own onto each. In many instance, a person does not fall in love with a partner, per se, but with a partner as a Rorschach love-blot. That is to say, the person projects onto the partner an idealized and highly idiosyncratic image that diverges from the image of that partner as perceived by other people. Hence the popular idiom that love is blind, for a lover projects onto a partner, or love-blot, his/her unique love image, as unique as his/her own face or finger print.”
Overview
Like the acquirement of a native language, a person’s lovemap also bears the mark of his or her own unique individuality, or accent. A lovemap is usually quite specific as to details of the physiognomy, build, race, and color of the ideal lover, not to mention temperament, manner, etc.Since its inception, the concept of “love maps”, applied to interpersonal relationships, has found apt acceptance and is frequently referenced in love / relationship / sexual-evolution theory books; as for example in Wilson and McLaughlin’s 2001 The Science of Love.[2]
>These people are fucking sick
Variations
Heterosexual lovemaps – love mappings associative to the average or typical sexual relationships.
Vandalized lovemaps– is when the love mapping process or neurological template development stagebecomes traumatized,as in for example being exposed at a young age, typically five to eight, to the sights, sounds and tortures of paraphilic sadist or masochist parents; or as in being led into a pedophilic relationship; or as being involved in an incestuous relationship.
Paraphilic lovemaps – when lust is attached to fantasies and practices that are socially forbidden, disapproved, ridiculed, or penalized; sometimes as a result of birth deformity (micropenis), chromosomal abnormality (45, X/46, XY), or as in accelerated growth (premature puberty).
Native lovemap - by analogy with native language, is a lovemap that is assimilated as one's own personal, inalienable possession, regardless of how many of its attributes are shared, or not shared by others.
Klismaphilic lovemap – specifies both in fantasy and performance that the person’s sexuoeroticism will be aroused, and orgasm achieved, only if the partner participates in a scenario of administering an enema.
Acrotomophilic lovemap – specifies a paraphilia of the stigmatic/eligibilic type in which sexuoerotic arousal and facilitation of attainment of orgasm are responsive to, and dependent upon a partner who is an amputee, or in extreme cases a thalidomide baby who has reached adulthood.
Zoophilic lovemap – specifies a paraphilia of the stigmatic/eligibilic type in which sexuoerotic arousal and facilitation of attainment of orgasm are responsive to, and dependent upon engaging in cross-species sexual activities, that is, with an animal.[3]
>and grooming behavior;
<the "grooming behavior" there does not mean what you think it means
Wrong
>"lovemap" that's drawn sometime between the ages of five and eight and
>is based on early experiences with parents, siblings, relatives, and the
>outside environment. This lovemap determines who attracts us
>erotically.
trust muh science
John Money: Father of Gender Identity, Falsifier and Advocate of Pedophilia
Money argued that sexual identity, which he called “gender” identity, was determined by upbringing, regardless of biological sex.
Guillermo Rodríguez
03.09.21
4 minute read
Although many neo-Marxists attribute to Simone de Beauvoir the beginnings of gender studies, which they now call gender science – trying to neutralize their detractors’ labeling them as gender ideology – the father of this dubious science was John Money.
John Money, a New Zealand psychologist with master’s degrees in Psychology and Education from the University of Wellington, emigrated to the United States in 1947, studied psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and in 1952 received his doctorate from Harvard. From 1951 until his death in 2006, he was professor of pediatrics and psychology at Johns Hopkins University.
As a sexologist, Money claimed that sexual identity–which he called gender identity–was independent of genetics and determined by upbringing. It was he who, in the English language, moved the term gender from the study of language to the health sciences, while studying hermaphroditism in the Department of Psychiatry and Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Money argued that social gender is encoded in infancy for either female or male. Each infant assimilates both halves of the code, identifying with one and complementing the other. For Money, parents transmit to their children an intimate sense of male or female being, which he called a gender identity. This process, Money said, occurred during the first three years of the child’s upbringing. Money’s gender identity was the opposite of biological sex determinism.
He conducted sexological studies on intersexual children, sexual fantasies, paraphilias and especially pedophilia,defending what he called ‘affective’ pedophilia.He was objected tofor attempting to normalize pedophilia.And he was singled out for allegedlypedophilic practices in experiments on children.He created the terms gender dysphoria, chronophilia, lovemap and gendermap, sexosophy, gender crossover, gynemimesis and andromimesis, among others. His positions on the exercise of sexuality, paraphilias and especially pedophilia were very controversial. But he enjoyed enormous prestige for his gender theory.
The Reimer tragedy
In his most famous case, with which he had supposedly proved his theory, the opposite was proven. But Money falsified the results. In 1966, an 8-month-old baby boy was diagnosed with fibrosis and scheduled for circumcision. A surgeon performed the operation with a novel electric scalpel that cauterizes while cutting.While using an electrical metal clamp to perform the surgery, the surgeon irreparably burned David Reimer’s penis.
The frightened parents desist from circumcising David’s twin brother and eventually consult the famous Dr. Money, who saw the opportunity for the clinical experiment that would prove his gender theory. He had two babies, identical twins. These desperate parents were willing to do whatever he recommended. A toddler Reimer, a victim of bad surgery, was reassigned female, had his testicles removed, a vulva surgically created, and his name changed to Brenda. Questioning his own theory, Money soon prescribed hormone treatment. Brenda was regularly given female hormones.
Money instructed the family never to reveal her sex change to Brenda and to raise her as a normal child. And both children went to medical appointments for years with Money, who published a series of articles reporting the reassignment as indisputably successful. Showcasing the case as proof of his theory. But it was all false.
During medical appointments Money forced Brenda and her brother Brian to perform sexual acts, with Brenda passively submitting to her brother pressing his crotch against her buttocks. Money also forced the two children to undress in order to perform genital inspections on them. And he took photographs. He justified it by claiming that childhood sex play was important for healthy gender identity in adulthood.
For years, Money reported the alleged success as his “John/Joan case.” He reported supposedly successful female gender development. And he touted the case as proof of the feasibility of sex reassignment with surgical reconstruction in non-intersex people. In reality, Brenda could never feel or behave like a normal girl; from an early age she had difficulty socializing with other girls because of her masculine attitudes in play and her disinterest in girly things. But Money caused her parents to lie to the hospital at annual visits about the success of her treatment.
In 1997, Milton Diamond revealed that Money’s “John/Joan case” reassignment had been a failure. Brenda had never identified as a girl or behaved in a typically female manner, despite having had her sex changed to female, been raised as a girl, treated with female hormones, and subjected to Money’s therapy of “childhood sex play” all her life.
At age 14 and after several suicide attempts, her parents finally decide to tell Brenda everything. They stopped seeing Money — who continued to publish about the supposed success in scientific journals — and Brenda (David), finally knowing who he really was, requested to undergo male hormone treatments, get his name back and finally undergo surgeries to regain his penis. Although the ability to reproduce had been removed by Money’s order.
In 2002, Brian Reimer, who had developed schizophrenia, died of a drug overdose. And on May 5, 2004, David Reimer committed suicide. Unable to bear the guilt, Reimer’s father committed suicided. Money felt no guilt, nor did he care about the family tragedy. In fact, he claimed until the end of his days that the experiment was a success and the media reports of its failure a conspiracy of the political right.
Money retained his position and much of his prestige by successfully leaning on the academic left–and the radicalized feminist movement–by claiming that his detractors claimed that “masculinity and femininity were in the genes for women to return to bed and the kitchen.” This is the real beginning of “gender science.”.
>Gives new meaning to 'Money is the root of all evil.'
<“Grooming behavior” in this context refers to hair brushing, bathing, etc.
>that there was a green sock celebrity anon hav
damnit
cant find muh screencaps. Can find other hollywood anon caps but not the greensockfag
I do believe Rock was speculated as one of the possibilites for Green Sock Hollywood insider
>I do believe Rock was speculated as one of the possibilites for Green Sock Hollywood insider
Based Black actor is all we knew.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180225015449/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2ijF2ya1c