By analyzing the complex and conceivable neuropsychological and behavioral mechanisms that have supported human progress, it is undeniable to say that the visual and conceptual dominance of beauty has always belonged to the homosexual component of every society. Since the dawn of Greek civilization, the complex interaction of environmental and anthropological drives has produced an emotional substrate capable of elevating the gay component of society to unmatched levels of innovation and sensitivity. How many other great figures like Phidias, Leonardo, Turing, Armani, and countless others have managed to make such unparalleled contributions to the evolution of the human race? Focusing on aesthetics, the value that homosexual genius has managed to produce in Italy and around the world becomes indisputable. The 90s, seductive volumes, muscular bodies: everything that modern straight-macho aesthetics has appropriated was borrowed from the gay world, the child of its evolutionary pressure, to which they were often aggressively subjected. What remains of a century-old history of resistance and mastery? What are gays producing in the fields of knowledge and design that will endure forever? Much less than one might imagine, because gays have been decimated by the rise of their more toxic and inferior counterpart: faggots. Beyond chem-sex parties, the flawless and self-referential Instagram, the looks endlessly celebrating ugly-chic, what have they been able to propose? What will be the emotional legacy of this new omosexual intelligentsia in the design landscape? Beauty as a medium of exchange in support of an ephemeral, lukewarm talent: where is it leading us? A fringe of humanity that, emotionally, has come to fall under the weight of its unresolved traumas, of a constant sense of inadequacy, before which the faggot responds with digital omnipresence, with the perpetual reminder of becoming what others have misunderstood and lost forever. Gays were first men woven from humanity and empathy, suffering and never defeated; by contrast, the faggot feeds on obsessive homophobia in every human being, is desired by straights in whom he always rediscovers a necessary and indelible latency: competition excites him against women and individuals different in shape and status; he allies himself with the most useful part of the status quo, whose protection he seeks by replicating its emptiness. He is the one who sees cringe in naturalness, demonizes the depth of every sensation, praises authenticity while carefully avoiding it. He is the one who will never photograph well, who accumulates terabytes of moments he will never look at again, who puts love everywhere as long as it is visible from the outside, and in the opening of his incurable loneliness the world rightly despises him, but this only reinforces his self-image as a messiah misunderstood by all. Nothing to give, everything to demand. On the basis of such behavioral premises, on such dogmas of modern faggotry, on such a minute and frayed human fabric, where could inspiration, evocation, and the sense of escape ever take root that homosexual predecessors were able to turn to their own advantage to the point of making their work a universal measure and standard?