June 20 Sunday 11p 1948
I’m not ready to say for sure, but might it be possible that sexual attraction toward a person comes subconsciously because that person can give you satisfaction. He is the object of your satisfaction. It follows an equation:
Subject + object = complete satisfaction
Of course! What else could it be? No! That’s –Yes. If the object was the one to give satisfaction, then it is the one that has appeal. Since I had E. first, and it gave complete satisfaction I developed homosexuality.
The amount of attraction depends upon the amount of satisfaction, naturally. (There’s something missing.) If the attraction comes—
Anyway, homosexuality is not prenatal but postnatal, unless it is a freak. But not 38% of the male race are freaks, therefore it was developed. Thus if it can be developed it can be undeveloped. No, not all can be undeveloped due to the frame of mind of the homo. And as homosexuality is developed, so is normal attraction developed. And since a person’s sexual desire depends upon his frame of mind and capacity so does his attraction and the power of that attraction.
It’s not what the object is; it’s what he can give you in satisfaction. Since most men never started out with men and hadn’t had satisfaction because it was not custom or convention to bother with the same sex, since life didn’t pay any attention to like sexes together, then they waited for the chance for the opposite and in adolescence when most kids are beginning they use exaggeration. (This is sure taking a lot of words.) I think it’s valuable to show my confustion or desperation in trying to understand what I’m trying to understand.
In other words people usually find satisfaction in the opposite because they accept that it is the only place, simply because it is the most fitting, perfect, method, meaning intercourse—whereas like sexes don’t have the facilities for each other. But that does not say there can’t be attraction there, because as I said before, the attraction comes not from the person itself but what it gives to you, or does for you. Now something’s wrong—how does a homo get satisfaction by blowing a man? He is not receiving satisfaction, (when I say satisfaction, I mean within the man himself through the final orgasm). But the answer to that is that, since, in the beginning he had received satisfaction in the man, it gradually developed into homosexuality without the need of self-satisfaction. Something tells me I’m all wrong because what makes for attraction in the opposite’s customary characteristics such as a woman’s softness and a man’s hardness, a woman’s sweetness and a man’s domination, but than that can be explained psychologically through love, and—
That’s enough of that.
Lately I feel a faint yet powerful attraction for woman. Not all, only certain and not all the time, it seems like it’s been latent and is now coming out. It first happened with Jackie and now the other night with Dorsey and for days after. That’s why I’ve been rationalizing because I’m losing my man’s attraction. With E. all’s I get is a thrill, but no sensation like with Louisa and Dorsey and Jackie, though the last two are more sexual than with Louisa. And I must be losing faith in the homo attraction as I seek for the ultimate satisfaction in the perfect method. Plus the fact that since I’ve been with this man lately I’ve realized how empty it all is. I just let him do it to me. There’s something more to be had in the opposite. The softness, etc. is there to make the union more perfect, just to make a more pleasant invitation on Mother Nature’s part to make sure that life’s purpose had no disadvantages, but all conveniences and pleasures. With more perfection there is more chance for satisfaction thus more attraction.
Went to the movies this afternoon, came home about 7:30. As I was walking by where the man lived he called from across the street. I went over, told him why I hadn’t been there for a while and set a time for 9:30…