/hypno/ - Hypnochan

Search for your local conservative (maybe even religious) hardliners. Those are usually pretty good at denying homosexuality or marking it as an illness, that can be cured.

Stay away from anything remotely scientific, though, since what you desire is not possible and will lead to depression or worse, as long as you are not already partially attracted to women or trying to recover from sissy hypnosis. In the latter case the usual alpha male files should be a better fit.

>>44510

you have those files?

>>44510

So what is your take on straights using gay conversion files?

>>44510

t. angry faggot who doesn't know that all sexual attraction is motivated solely by lust and environmental conditioning

no one is born gay or straight, it's all social conditioning, largely during puberty when hormones are at full force.

OP, try to disconnect from porn and masturbation as best you can since it is lust that is making you gay, stop being lustful and you can return to state 0. Once you're at state 0 you can determine what to be interested in, if anything.

>>44514

Look here >>24229

>>44518

If they use it to try to change their sexual orientation, while not being at least bisexual, they are just as mislead in their information. There is no evidence, that suggest one can just change their sexual orientation by choice.

Homosexuals living in very repressive systems would otherwise likely do. But we are still regularly presented with their misery, whenever there is a bigger event in their county, that draws extended attention.

>>44520

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5040471/

Who is the angry faggot now?

Fuck off with your misinformation and conspiracy theories.

*… a bigger event in their country, that …

everyone is born bisexual

heterosexuality -> procreation

homosexuality -> competition

if you go limp around other men while you're trying to mate, you're going to have a hard (heh) time trying to reproduce

if you go limp looking at your own dick, you're a genetic dead end

ever touched your own dick? then you're a literal faggot forever

it must be said though, that you can be conditioned to change your sexual preferences

if you're taught that homosexuality is bad, and you also see your fellow primates look in disgust at same-sexed others' genitalia, you'll mimic them and eventually internalize such a reaction

likewise, you can be conditioned to be aroused by anything; there's no reason you can't be trained to be more aroused by certain sexual stimuli over others.

HYPNO RELATED: hypnosis can be used for this conditioning

the social construction of privacy (including the use of clothing) coupled with the natural drive towards social conformity enables homosexuality to be repressed en masse: privacy ensures that you aren't confronted with same-sex genitalia, nor are you confronted with sexual acts which include someone of your same sex; conformity ensures that you perpetuate any pre-existing social views on sexuality. pornography, via erosion of sexual privacy, may facilitate sexual self-discovery

the wrong question being asked is whether a person is born homosexual. the right question is, does it matter? no

-if you're born with your sexuality: if it can't be changed, why should a society waste resources attempting to change it? if it can be changed, again why waste resources forcing a change? a person's sexuality doesn't affect their productive capabilities nor is it inherently life threatening. the only reason to change it at that point would be to satisfy some arbitrary social norm (which can be changed itself!)

-if sexuality is a choice: if you're a proponent of personal liberty, you should be indifferent to the (sexual) choices of others, especially the choices of complete strangers that exist entirely outside of your reality bubble and have no effect on your personal life; if you hate freedom and love being told what to do, then go ahead and stick a loaded gun in your mouth and pull the trigger

>>44510

>>44521

1/?

First of all marketing it as an illness isn't all that correct. However in the modern day it's an illness that doesn't matter. Even whether you believe people are just born gay, it's an abnormality (as homosexuals are absolutely a minority group) in the way you behave. Maybe calling it a condition is preferable to you? Psychopaths are a group with a brain abnormality that could cause some negative things in their life. Not all of them will, and not all of them are people who will do terrible things either, but it's still a mental illness.

Second of all your answer to the question about straight to gay hypnosis didn't answer what I believe is part of the question. Will straight to gay hypnosis files cause the significant depression or worse as the gay to straight hypnosis will? The repressive system suppresses some homosexuality but other people die because they feel they have to practice it. I believe them to be wrong to even have to hide it, but whether it's their right or not to be able to have consensual sex with whomever, they are literally willing to risk death to do that and it's been that way throughout a pretty large chunk of our history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

"A mental disorder, also called a mental illness[2] or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.[3] Such features may be persistent, relapsing and remitting, or occur as a single episode. Many disorders have been described, with signs and symptoms that vary widely between specific disorders.[4][5] Such disorders may be diagnosed by a mental health professional. "

How does this not include homosexuality throughout history, especially given that there are still consequences for doing so throughout history. I think people should have the right to not be discriminated against for things that they can't help that make them stand out that don't hurt anybody. Regardless many are and they seek help for it.

I don't think homosexuals or anyone should be forced to adjust their sexuality for everyone else as long as they aren't harming anybody. However we hide we listen to hypno porn because people might think we're fucking weird. It's a fetish that we risk being slightly ostracized for because it's makes us aroused. Homosexuals find their own gender arousing, we don't really understand why, and they're willing to, in some cases, risk death to pursue it. If you can consider homosexuality a fetish, which I kind of think you can, they're risking death for their kink.

I think that we're becoming addicted to arousal given the environments we live in with abundant easily accessible porn and a more liberal attitude towards sexual experiences that aren't necessarily harsh on pornography with only few restrictions in the west that are often very justified. So I think we look for more and more until we end up with things like hypno + whatever your specific fetish is. We may not let it influence our lives too much, but some people do. There are also fully functioning heroin addicts that keep it in check just enough to pass by. Do you think people haven't let porn ruin their lives? What about people who get addicted to findom and fuck everything up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

"Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences.[8] Despite the involvement of a number of psychosocial factors, a biological process – one which is induced by repeated exposure to an addictive stimulus – is the core pathology that drives the development and maintenance of an addiction.[1][9] The two properties that characterize all addictive stimuli are that they are reinforcing (i.e., they increase the likelihood that a person will seek repeated exposure to them) and intrinsically rewarding (i.e., they are perceived as being inherently positive, desirable, and pleasurable).[1][3][7]"

>>44510

>>44521

>>44547

2/2

Personally I think homosexuality is more of a nurture issue, again with some people more predisposed to it much like alcoholism running in your family. Consider this:

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders

"Alcohol use disorder (AUD) often seems to run in families, and we may hear about scientific studies of an “alcoholism gene.” Genetics certainly influence our likelihood of developing AUD, but the story isn’t so simple.

Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for AUD. Therefore, genes alone do not determine whether someone will develop AUD. Environmental factors, as well as gene and environment interactions account for the remainder of the risk.*"

Alcoholics often struggle with their illness throughout their lives and just can't ever even have a sip again, some have trouble even being in the same room as alcohol. Some don't. Similar to being a smoker, some people can quit and some people really fucking struggle and risk death for it as well as hurt their financial situation given their price.

Personally, I think it's a reasonable suggestion that SOME homosexuals were born more likely for whatever reason to become homosexuals in the future while others had, often early, experiences that led them to where they are.

"Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment" suggests that gender-nonconformity, which is more common in non-heterosexuals, causes homosexual children to be more likely targets of pedophiles. To be clear, I'm not stating that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles themselves, I'm suggesting that homosexuals are more likely to have experiences sexual abuse as a child than the average population. Why could this not suggest that factors in someone's development led to someone's sexual orientation? We also have to consider that affects other than child abuse could potentially still lead to homosexuality. Did you do some gay shit as a kid? If you still do them maybe that experimentation you had the opportunity to do. Anecdotally I'm a guy who is mostly straight, as defined by the Kinsey Scale, and I did a pretty gay thing as a kid and I still moved on. I was scared to do it again and I ended up straight with gay fantasies from time to time. I wonder if it's more likely I would have been a full blown cocksucker if I wasn't scared to do it again. Why isn't this reasonable?

If this were the case then why couldn't we label homosexuality a form of addiction?

>>44521

Idk man, had gfs all my life, never once was fem or gay, just wasnt for me until S4mb4n influenced me with penis enlargement. Then one day I saw a cock and got hard. I was hit by a truck.

Also 100+ page thread on wmm contradicting you.

Just my experiences. I always thought it was hard wired shit and could possibly be changed over time.

Ill get around to reading that though.

>>44508

Thats may be what you are looking for

h++ps://volafile.org/r/gwhkjmwm

Full Set + Instructions + Induction

>>44545

Wow, that is a lot of shit in one place. Let's just pick out a few points…

>if you go limp looking at your own dick, you're a genetic dead end

>ever touched your own dick? then you're a literal faggot forever

lol. If this is not trolling, you have to have a literally really hard time in the men's shower.

Washing your dick looking uncomfortably somewhere else to prevent it from getting hard and then also transforming into a faggot because you are touching your dick. What a life changing experience.

>you can be conditioned to change your sexual preferences

Yes but sexual preferences as in what specifically turns you on, not what gender you are attracted to.

>you'll mimic them and eventually internalize such a reaction

And then you'll develop depression or worse as you've been conditioned to dislike what you are attracted to, without a way to change the latter.

> if it can't be changed, why should a society waste resources attempting to change it?

The fact is, that it does attempt this in many parts of the world despite strong medical evidence indicating it to be ineffective at best if not counterproductive, as my link above shows.

>if sexuality is a choice

If it was you were right in your subsequent comments but as it is dangerous for people trying to change something based on wrong information they could do so, and then failing at it, is way more problematic. The question here is why they would they like to change, if not for reproductive reasons. It is because enough people sadly are not indifferent to the sexuality of others in their community.

>>44547

>>44548

I'm sorry, if my first post suggested that I believe homosexuality to be an illness.

I merely think it to be a part of nature as it isn't even exclusive to humans. I also encourage the more modern view presented at the end of this article (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder), which suggests to encourage people to accept their sexual orientation, implying not discriminate against the one of others as well.

There was also a more recent reclassification by the WHO in this context which I can't seem to find right now.

>Will straight to gay hypnosis files cause the significant depression or worse as the gay to straight hypnosis will?

also >>44553

If it aims to change the actual sexuality of the listener, then it logically should. Personally I don't think binding pleasure triggers to the thought of a cock is that much of a problem, but to make them deny their own sexual orientation is a recipe for depression.

Now to the pedophile case:

As I have written before I don't think sexuality can be changed by other influences. On the other hand we can see in women, that if there is less repression, people are more likely to experiment with their sexuality increasing the chance of a bisexual person finding a homosexual partner and decreasing the number of people living in denial of their sexuality. This equates to a higher number of homosexual relationships.

If someone is exposed to predatory homosexual experiences early life that might well make them more open them to this sexuality if they would also have had bisexual tendencies normally.

The way bigger issue with this is the trauma, that it leaves the victims with, which may also manifest in their sexual development breaking it to a point where they may be unable to build a natural attraction to any gender and then defaulting to what they have been exposed to by a "strong" personality in their youth. I am no expert on this though, as it's not exactly something I am normally interested in, nor does it have a lot of overlap with erotic hypnosis.

>>44557

thanks

>>44573

lul no one cares fag

>>44557

Reup?

Even if sexuality were genetic, with kids getting access to internet porn from single-digit ages, the genetic component of sexuality is moot. Maybe if ya hopped in a time machine to the middle ages that shit would have relevancy, but in this world it's meaningless.

>>44508

telling someone again and again that they like something they don't and extend that conclusion to the exclusion of other things just leads to horrible damage. From an applied behavioral psychology perspective, it doesn't do much other than injure self-esteem and can cause trauma related to sense of self.

If, say, a straight person watched a video saying "you don't want dick" "you want vagina" for an hour it'd probably still be annoying

>now you're horny and stuck thinking about both dick and vagina because that's how the human brain works

I suggest asking yourself why this person you want these for wants them, and if they've stepped back and considered why they care so much who makes them horny. That being said, kinky5h1bby has masculinization and some workout-related files on her Soundgasm

> telling someone again and again that they like something they don't and extend that conclusion to the exclusion of other things just leads to horrible damage. From an applied behavioral psychology perspective, it doesn't do much other than injure self-esteem and can cause trauma related to sense of self.

Brainwashing does work though, and the best example is modern pop music.

Nobody actually likes it the first time they listen to it, and it makes sense because it's objectively not good music. The best your brain can do at that point is get a sense of familiarity because all pop songs are products that mimics other successful pop songs.

Then, what they do is that they make you hear it on every radio, every TV channels, every nightclubs, etc. And then when you're brainwashed, you have the some on your phone, you share it with your friends, and the process begins for them.

You might reply that pop music has nothing to do with the self, I would argue that the only self you have is the belief that you have a self. There is absolutely no scientific proof that the self (identity) is anything other than a set of beliefs like any other and therefore it's subject to change.

> If, say, a straight person watched a video saying "you don't want dick" "you want vagina" for an hour it'd probably still be annoying

That's pretty funny, but it's also the perfect example of suggestions that wouldn't work anyway.

>>47141

>Nobody actually likes it the first time they listen to it, and it makes sense because it's objectively not good music

>the only possible reason people could like something that I don't like is because they're brainwashed

How can someone unironically believe this?

>>47151

This place is filled with idiots who think they're smart.

>>47151

>How can someone unironically believe this?

They're mostly right, though. Exposure and familiarity do increase positive feelings toward things like music.

>>47156

It does but people do still like pop music the first time they listen to it, but over time the parts they dislike get ignored more and more

>>47141

people like pop music the first time they listen to it because it hits the buttons in their brain that makes it happy. They often consciously hate the 'objectively' shit lyrics, but eventually they accept it because the rest of the music makes them feel good

>>47151

>How can someone unironically believe this?

That's easy, you just have to be knowledgeable about music and the music industry.

The vast majority of modern pop songs are written by 2 or 3 people that are paid by studios.

Katy Perry, Britney Spears, Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake, Maroon 5, Ariana Grande, Pink, etc, etc ? they are just popstars, products, packaging. They don't write their songs and they barely sing, as was demonstrated by the Britney Spears leak a couple of years ago when we discovered what her real voice sounded like without heavy production and autotune.

Because their songs are written by 2 or 3 people, it's only natural that they all sound the same.

The other reason they all sound the same is that they all follow the same writing process : basically, they reverse engineer other successful pop songs, take what works, and rearrange them just enough so that they can't be sued.

And sometimes they get caught by the mainstream media, like the "millennial whoop" you may have heard about :

https://www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2016/aug/30/millennial-whoop-pop-music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN23lFKfpck

Pop writers don't compose music anymore, that's too risky for the studio who can't afford to be wrong, so they rely on what's familiar and just do what works. And what works is just skipping the "taking a risk on a real artist" part.

So it's unoriginal, fake, boring.

Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy.

And like I said previously, to make sure it works, they bombard you with it to force their songs in your heads.

>>47205

Sounds like they're perfecting what people actually like/what we consider good music.

>>47228

HAAAAAA! Distorted.

There is a lot I could say, but I'll keep it brief. To add to the great breakdown the anon did there, part of it works by shoving shit on people, and it shows that humans tend to go along with whatever is shoved in front of them. But it doesn't work on the older generations, that hear it for exactly what it is. I don't think young people now even understand what real music is, it's like they have been tuned into this shite. I don't think they will ever experience the effect that real music has on you either, not unless they brake out of their conditioning. You can say it's all subjective, but that's bullshit. There will be a range of stuff that is considered real music that some wont like, and some will. I hear some music that I don't like, but I can give it the credit for being real music, even if it's not to my taste. But it isn't all just subjective. Music and sound has real qualities that has a real effect on us, and you can't equal some modern crap and Jimi Hendrix. Some random annoying noise while someone blurts out a phrase over and over can not produce the effect that real music can. Fact, not just down to taste. So people listening to the current shit pile may indeed like what they listen to but it can't produce the effect real music can. I don't think music has the same purpose for younger folks. I think it's more about following the personality, celebrity, rather than digging the music.

Didn't keep it too brief after all!

This is exactly what the previous generations said about the shit you listened to, dumbfuck.

The Beatles had a personality cult bigger than anything we see today. Hendrix was just noise to the olds of the day.

You're just an aging, bitter fuck. Nothing sadder than halfwits like you whining about 'real music'. Have some self-re-cocking-spect.

>>47261

Awwwww… did someone insult the little third grade teeny pop starlet you adore with all your cute little heart? Poor little sissy is getting angry? *pet your head*

>>44508

there's a big forum thread on WMM about this.

>>47283

I'm aware of that

>>47121

He was asking me for help and I think he was crying on the other side of the phone

>>47261

Yeah, but look at who the Beatles were. You can't compare Katy Perry with John Lennon! People had reason to be interested in the individuals then. But guess what, they were also incredible musicians! The complete package. And Hendrix may have been just noise to some, but when you look at how stiff and rigid the culture was in years before the 50's and 60's, they were obviously messed up and not ready for an expansion. Hendrix was brilliant music, but way too out there for some older people of course, but he was no question producing rich beautiful music. Dubstep sounds like robots suffering from some kind of electrical diarrhea.

I'm in my 20's actually. I just have good taste.

>>47267

It's quite hilarious to see him get so angry like that isn't it!?

I mean, anyone with sense just can't argue about this. You can't defend the music of today.

>>47316

Without knowledge of composition, "musical taste" is just social posturing.

But you're not like those guys over there, so you're in the clear.

>>44557

Reupload pls

>>47290

That's a different issue then. If they're that desperate to change themselves I suggest professional psychological help rather than DIY. Get that person to a PhD medical professional and give them some hugs if you can, they probably need it

>>47448

I'm always hugging all my male and female friends

I'm sure he has enough hugs from me

Idk if he can afford it or if his parents know about that

>>47257

Real music is dependent on whether it can "produce the effect that real music can"? Sounds like it's more about you then the actual music.

*than

>>47473

Have him read Coming Out of Shame, and Outing Yourself.

>>47478

Can you clarify that? Sounds like you are talking shit, but I will give you the chance to tell us you were drunk or something, and didn't articulate your point very well.

>>47323

That's not true at all.

"musical taste" comes first through pure exploration of music. Then, with knowledge of composition, you can identify the parameters and sometimes begin to understand how and why.

Resolving a V chord to a I chord is satisfying because V generates tension that is resolved by the I chord. It doesn't go the other way : it's not because you know the theory that it becomes satisfying.

We all feel that tension-release with V to I even if we don't know what it is, and that's why a composer can subvert your expectation by resolving to something else that will play with that expectation and give you a whole new feeling, a whole new experience.

It's a very basic example. But the more you listen to music, the more you unconsciously become familiar with musical "shapes" as you expand your range, the more a composer can play with those expectations in more and more subtle ways. It an endless dive.

And that's one of the reasons why modern pop sucks : subverting expectation requires talent to be tasteful, AND it requires you to take a risk and do something new, which is the complete opposite of the modern pop writing process.

So as you listen to bland music with songs that all sound the same, you become musically illiterate. This process can go very far : a lot of people trapped in the pop format can't even listen to a 9 minute song without spacing out and getting lost. It becomes of vicious cycle with people falling deeper and deeper into musical retardation, and pop composer following that descent because "it's what works".

Basically, if you eat McDonalds every day, you will find even Boeuf Bourguignon to be very bland.