>>94191637I wish I could explain how retarded your logic is, but I imagine it would escape you. I'm going to try anyway.
If your belief is that repression is the cause of homosexuality, then a reasonable consequence is that reducing repression would therefore reduce homosexuality.
If your belief is that homosexuality is simply inherent, however, then repression shouldn't have any factor in increases or decreases in homosexuality.
Now humor me; did Victorian Era have more or less homosexuality?
>>94191677No, no, anon.
Obviously, Victorian Era was SUPER gay since everyone was oppressed. Like, even gayer than now. It only makes sense.
