Becoming Disgusting
Fear/Anxiety is not disgust/repulsion, although the two are intentionally and methodically considered synonyms, so as to justify and defend victim psychology by identifying all threats against it as the product of their own projected feelings of anxiety, e.g., homophobe, xenophobe, and with their own hateful reactions to a perceived threat, e.g., misogyny. Here the defensive method of projection attempts to invert an external cause for an internal effect, viz., the reactive effect to an external cause, is converted to the cause, and the defensive effect is now converted to the threatening cause.
Similarly, repulsion is an act of willful power rejecting, repelling what is judged to be toxic, or dangerous… or simply undesirable, unwanted, unnecessary.
The inverting method can also be used to repel a threat by making oneself toxic, undesirable, unwanted and unnecessary; self-preservation via a defensive strategy that utilizes a threat’s own powerful qualities of repulsion, preserving the actor’s purity of motive, i.e., its required innocence, since the actor does not repel another but makes itself repulsive. The threatened one projects its own vulnerability by becoming toxic or by imitating toxicity.
The pretence of being more dangerous, more toxic, than what one really is has become a common defensive strategy – imitating the markers that display danger, e.g., colouring, size, or toxicity, ugliness, deformity.
Self-Handicapping in nature is actual handicapping, displaying an individual’s theoretical fitness, e.g., disproportionally sized antlers contradict the rule of symmetry and proportionality so as to outperform a competitor, signalling the individual’s endurance towards adversity; sacrificing functionality for the sake of genetic prolongation.
Such displays are not faked. A peacock tail and deer antlers are an actual burden the male may not endure for long. Subsequently, we can say that self-handicapping, by intentionally seeming to be ugly, unattractive, useless, or toxic to another – genetically and/or memetically repulsive – would have to be faked, denying oneself short-term genetic prolongation for some long-term advantage.
Survival of individuals is not nature’s concern. Individuals are means to an end, viz., passing on genes or memes, before the inevitability of death deletes them.
I can think of one group that has adopted a repulsive meme and has learned to thrive by being hated and victimized. The greatest threat to its adopted methodology would be acceptance and assimilation into a different genetic and memetics group. Here being ideologically assimilated is similar to being physically consumed, therefore to prevent this from occurring it must make of itself as toxic, repulsive, unpalatable as possible, for as long as it can endure the other’s disgust. Lacking the power to repel another it must trigger the gag reflex in what threatens to consume it – their own fear/anxiety of concealed hatred must become a defensive accusation so as to cause a reaction that would consolidate its numbers.
Example: a woman who has suffered the disempowering violence of rape may adopt a habit of making herself physically or emotionally repulsive, as a way of decreasing the possibility of further aggressions towards her, knowing that she is too feeble to prevent it otherwise.

Visceral reaction to toxic stimuli. Disgust expresses an unequivocal rejection of another.

The term ‘hate’ is often mistakenly used to express disgust. Disgust lacks the emotional component of hatred – it is of the body.

Disgust: an automatic recognition of what is toxic; what is contrary to an internal hierarchy.

We gag, wanting to expel an offensive substance. We loath that which we consider poison to our core being. We want to push away, distance ourselves, from what intrudes upon our well-being.

We do not choose to feel disgusted, but we can be trained to decrease the reaction, through habituation.

The need for orderliness, cleanliness produces the reaction of disgust – often mistaken for fear. The desire to repel what contradicts an established order, keeping away what might soil it, what might corrupt its pristine order.

To negate one’s taste – loss of ‘gustus’ – is to become repugnant to one’s own sense of taste – loss of appetite, hunger. [size=60][ MANifesto: Nature – Need>Appetite<Pleasure – Hunger][/size]

Like pain-tolerance disgust tolerance is inherited and cultivated or allowed to atrophy.

Political Spectrum of Disgust
Disgust tolerance levels determine right-leaning from left-leaning dispositions.
There is no fear, other than towards toxicity. Novelty, or the alien, always implies unknown levels of toxicity, and so right-leaning dispositions tend to be ‘xenophobic,’ or more precisely pre-emptively xeno-disgusted, and always more comfortable with the familiar and similar.
The left’s xenophilia and enlarged disgust threshold tolerance may be an adaptation seeking an advantage in novelty and the potentially intoxicating.
We see this lack of aversion in their sexual practices.

Automatic reactive disgust, repulsing toxins; body attempting to empty its digestive system of all unwanted matter.

A pre-emptive reaction, participating in organic autoimmune processes.

Mental equivalent to the gag reflex can be experienced as an inexplicable loathing for what is yet not entirely known or understood – feeling repugnance for something or someone without knowing why; mind/body recognizing a toxin before it can be fully perceived.

When hormonally intoxicated the feminine tends to gain a reduction in gag reflex so as to be able to tolerate alien genes within her system long enough for fertilization and gestation to be completed.
Morning sickness is a female’s accumulating gag reflex gradually returning to their original levels.
I suspect that females with a high tolerance level for toxicity, or the alien – high gag reflex threshold – will tend to not suffer morning sickness to any great degree.