Russell Brand is innocent. This is another Matrix Attack.
Author: Rod Fleming
Scottish Writer, photographer, artist and musician. Currently living in the Philippines with the lovely Sam. I like photography, art, motorcycling, food (too much) sailing and dogs. I am a published author.
This is going to be short. Congratulations and happy anniversary to my lovely girlfriend, Samantha, for putting up with one year of my moods, stressed-out-ness, general confusion and chaos. Thank you. I love you very much. Here’s to many more.
Bisexualism in males has a chequered history. Beloved by its proponents, it lacks convincing support, at least in the West, where it is taken to mean, more or less, ‘equal attraction to both masculinity and femininity’. Actual studies are conflicting and the consensus must be that more depends on the way the question is put than reality. Look at the following pictures. Can it really be possible to be sexually attracted as much to the one as the other?
I don’t think so. Yet there is one form of bisexualism in males that is well-supported and documented. It is a function of Autogynephilia, a common fetish of straight men.
Today I am spitting nails. I see that I have been lied to. Germany is not the good European nation it sells itself as. It is the same bullying, totalitarian monster it always has been. (This article was written in 2015; things are a lot worse now, in 2022.)
Today I am furious.
And why? Because I have seen Germany destroy a weaker nation for political ends. I have seen Germany destroy all notion of European solidarity. I have seen Germany reveal its true self — the monstrous bully of Europe that cannot suffer dissent and insists that its orders must be followed, on pain of destruction.
In 1871 Germans failed. In 1914 they failed. In 1939-45 they failed — although defeating them cost 72 million lives and the destruction of Europe, not to mention the horror of the Holocaust.
But in 2015 they have succeeded. They have finally achieved their end. They have crushed a sovereign nation, not with tanks and bombers, but with threats and usury.
A scale of Sexual Inversion has been hinted at in several online conversations of late. So what would a scale of sexual inversion look like?
First, as a negative comparison, let’s look at Kinsey. He, an etymologist and a taxonomist, proposed a ‘scale of human sexuality’ from 0 (Fully Heterosexual) to 6 (Fully homosexual.) The wonder is that this was accepted anywhere, since it flew in the face of pretty much all previous understanding. Nobody proposed that male sexuality was a scale of variation, till Kinsey; they all suggested that homosexuality was an anomaly, most likely caused by factors in utero not then understood — which in fact it was, and remains: Sexual Inversion.
It’s not that often I agree with Suzanne Moore. So that has to be noteworthy for a start. I find myself agreeing with Joseph Stiglitz more often — and why not, I mean he is a Nobel Prize winner. I am pretty sure for all three of us to be in agreement is pretty exceptional though.
Originally posted 2015-07-09 17:14:30.
And what are we agreeing about? The Germany bully and its atrocious, scandalous treatment of Greece, that’s what.
Margaret Thatcher’s, fears, expressed before Germany was re-unified, have proven correct: Germany is once again Europe’s bad-mannered thug, and it has long since begun to flex its muscles.
Of course it always thus; three times in under 70 years, the German bully invaded its neighbours and created havoc. (Okay, the first was technically Prussia, but that’s a detail.)
You know, if you really want to ruin your Saturday night, go hang around an Autogynephilic male message forum.
An Autogynephilic male is besotted by himself — as a woman. The condition is a form of autoeroticism. Dr Ray Blanchard’s coined the term the 1980s at the Clarke Institute in Toronto. It is safe to say that neither this institution nor Dr Blanchard have found favour with many an Autogynephilic male.
Blanchard, was trying to put some statistical flesh on the ‘two types’ theory of transition. In fact, the idea that there were two clearly differentiated types of male who might want to appear to be women had been known for many years, since the time of Magnus Hirschfeld. One type was easy to understand, the other so complex that some researchers thought there was a multiplicity.
Men and women select partners differently. Men are visual-target-oriented. They are the hunters. They see particular features and find them attractive, and so they tend to try to select mates that have them. Men are driven in this by female fertility. They are looking, in a long-term partner, for someone whom they think will be able to bear and rear children. This is the beginning of gender.
So who is the primary model for the ideal mother in a man’s mind? Easy; his own. So men tend to seek out women who in some way remind them of their own mothers, or rather, as their own mothers looked when they were young. There is evidence that men are most attracted to women of eighteen to twenty-two, which squares with this.
These traits were evolved over a long period of time, tens or even hundreds of thousands of years, and during that time, women gave birth early, beginning at twelve to fourteen or so. So, again, the ideal ‘proto-mother’ that men seek is a young woman.
‘Sexual Inverts’ are either male with female sexuality or female with male sexuality. In other words, their sexuality is the inverse of what might be expected for their sex. They were described by Karl Ulrichs and Havelock Ellis amongst others. Since gender is the means by which we communicate our sexuality to others, male inverts desire to be feminine and females, masculine. The specific expression ranges from, in males, mildly camp to full social, hormonal and surgical transition, to True or homosexual transsexualism, HSTS. (It is a scale of variation.) All male sexual inverts are naturally more or less feminised and all female sexual inverts are naturally the opposite. They often have real difficulty living in the gender their sex would suggest.
Theirs is not, however, the only form that male homosexuality can take.
Homosexual transsexuals exactly fit the profile of ‘sexual inversion’ as defined over a hundred years ago by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895)
‘The truth of the invert was inside rather than on the surface; thus a male invert was “really” a woman, and should be allowed to express a female gender, and a female invert was “really” a man, and should be allowed to dress and live as one. Inversion also referred to the ways in which such bodies inverted the laws of nature, which supposedly decreed that male bodies should desire female sexual partners instead of male ones, and vice versa. The theory of sexual inversion maintained conventional categories of sexuality and gender and did not allow one to be divided from the other. Inversion meant that a man’s homosexual desires, effeminacy, or both did not challenge masculine gender or heterosexual sexual norms; rather, a perfectly normal heterosexual woman with a feminine gender was trapped inside him, yearning to come out.’ (Encyclopedia.com)
Later, the English sexology pioneer H Havelock Ellis wrote:
‘(Congenital sexual inversion) is sexual instinct turned by inborn constitutional abnormality towards persons of the same sex.'(My emphasis).
(Ellis uses the term ‘congenital’ which remains unproven. It is clear that what he is talking about is innate and must result from biological factors occurring either in the womb or shortly after birth; but we do not know whether the trigger for whatever these might be is congenital, that is, a result of a specific gene mutation. However, the condition is innate and not acquired. I prefer to use the term ‘innate’.)
Ellis’ massive study of human sexuality, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, which is downloadable via this page HERE, contains a whole volume on sexual inversion, and he defines this as above on the first page. Note that both Ulrichs and Ellis agreed that this sexual inversion was innate. It was inborn and not a matter of choice.
Observation in the Philippines casts light on an interesting group of Autogynephiles in the West. One of these, who is public, is called Candice ‘Kay Brown’ Elliott.
Kay Brown maintains a website discussing the scientific consensus about trans and has even written a book about it. She has been claiming for decades that she is HSTS and loses no opportunity, in her writing, to support this claim. However even cursory examination of her body morphology and career indicates that this diagnosis would be unlikely.
A more plausible explanation would be that Kay Brown is Autogynephilic, but that within her family, middle-class and liberal, her feminisation was accepted because she explained it as a consequence of homosexuality. Ever since then, Brown has maintained this facade, marrying a man and becoming ‘mother’ to his children. In other words, while their motivations are definitely different, it is not always easy to tell between HSTS and AGP.