Originally posted 2022-09-21 15:39:16.
The Greeks deeply appreciated the sexual allure of beautiful boys. I mean that old goat Zeus even kidnapped one, Ganymede.
The Romans, too, enjoyed them at every level of society. Beautiful boys were imported as slaves by the thousands, to satisfy the Roman desire for them. These boys were coiffed and dressed as girls. They were ladyboys — whether they liked it or not.
The Islamosphere is so passionate in its male love for beautiful boys that the Prophet himself commented upon their allure. The Ottoman Empire was legendary for its enthusiasm for boys, suitably feminised; ergo, they were ladyboys.
The love of beautiful boys was the foundation of the English Public School system and may still be, for who knows what goes on behind those closed doors? I mean, they’re English. Well, we do, because that excellent queen buggeree, Quentin Crisp, herself one of the beautiful boys, described the night-time antics inside a typical English boarding school in her book, The Naked Civil Servant. And she was not the only one to spill the beans. Numerous other authors have helped.
John Graham, a distinguished journalist, gave Sir Ranulph Fiennes the following account of Eton in the late 1950s:
There was a lot of sexual activity at school both outside and inside. We lived in boarding houses, we each had our own bedroom. Any boy could easily slip along to another’s room and the boys did sleep with one another. We slept with each other not because we were homosexual but because we were at a highly sexual time of our lives and there were no available girls.*
We talked and dreamed about girls. Our rooms were ablaze with pin-ups, Brigitte Bardot, Mansfield and Monroe. Had there been any girls around, we would have been as heterosexual, as straight, as anyone. But there were none. Schoolmasters may say you can sublimate all your excess sexual energy playing football or learning French verbs but that is baloney. A lot of our surplus energy expressed itself sexually and since our only potential partners were of the same sex, our encounters were naturally homosexual. We were in bed with each other and had a very nice time.
In the holidays we chased girls as fast as we could and we certainly did not consider ourselves bent or gay. Perhaps ten per cent of Eton homosexuals remained so after leaving school and they would have ended up gay whatever school they attended.
* Those of you who pay attention will be aware that for many years now I have said that sexual activities in the likes of these boarding schools are not homosexual, because neither party is a homosexual. The same applies to prisons, ships and any manner of situations where males are cooped up with no females to fuck. Beautiful boys may become the go-to substitute but that does not mean they are homosexual. The ridiculous notion that any time a man sticks his cock up another male’s bum he becomes ‘homosexual’ needs to be debunked.
Beautiful Boys in the Renaissance
With the Renaissance and the beginning of the modern Western world, beautiful boys became a powerful sexual force once again. Donatello, Michelengelo, Da Vinci, Botticelli, all worshipped beautiful boys as ladyboys. Caravaggio famously made many paintings of beautiful boys in sexualised poses, most of whom he had openly buggered.
Squads of inspectors, called ‘The Office of the Night’, roamed the streets of Renaissance Florence looking for ‘broken arses’. Despite this, nearly every great Renaissance artist was well known for having his tool up beautiful boys’ bottoms on a regular basis, for swooning over them and for having public affairs with them. Tell me these were not ladyboys.
Female models were not available to the artists of the Quattrocento; indeed the first to use them was probably that great iconoclast, Raphael. Botticelli’s famous Birth of Venus almost certainly features a beautiful boy, as a result.
In England it got harsh after Henry VIII’s enactment of the infamous Buggery Act, which was only repealed in 1967. It has been suggested that this law was brought in because of the widespread practice, amongst the outlawed Catholic clergy, of buggering beautiful boys — the choirboys. (Why do you think they wore those cute frocks?)The King was not really against buggery, which he almost certainly indulged in himself, he just wanted to stop the Papists having fun. And in any case, his own clergymen, the Anglicans, became notorious in their own right for ‘Le Vice’.
Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries and into the 19th, London, like other British cities, was home to dozens of ‘molly-houses’ — sex dens where beautiful boys would dress as women and have sex with men. They even organised ‘weddings’ which were consummated before the crowd. (The name ‘molly’ comes from the Latin ‘mollis’, a poof or queer; it gives us the verb ‘to mollify’.)
It was not the physical matter of anal penetration itself that offended; rather, that became taboo by association. After all, most of the men who crafted laws against ‘buggery’ were happily, themselves, buggering beautiful boys; and that includes King James the VI and I, who was notorious for it, as were many of his Stuart relatives.
No, the problem was that in an act of penetrative sex between two men, one of them becomes a ‘woman’.
This goes back to Roman times and long before. It was all right to bugger beautiful boy slaves, because, as slaves, they had no status to compromise. But woe betide any mature man who lets his rear cleft be punctured by another man, for he is not only renouncing his own male ‘honour’, he is attacking every other man’s. This is similar to the
‘Roman distrust and fear of the galli, (who) not only deliberately made themselves unable to produce offspring, but…served as bad examples to others, tempting young men to join their ranks. ‘ (My underscore for emphasis.)
The submissive partner was, and is, seen as having renounced his manhood and thus is no longer actually a man; that person is now a ‘not-man’. The fact of an adult man being penetrated, willingly at that, would demote him to the lowest status in society — lower than that of a woman; a catamite.
Why, if they were not stopped then men might become women — and of course, nothing could confer a greater contumely. But that is not all; if men decide to give up the pursuit of penetration in favour of being penetrated, why would they do any of the other things that women want them to do — like dying in needless wars or spending their lives in the misery of wage-slavery?
By the same token, if a man were to discover that the anal penetration of a beautiful and enthusiastic ladyboy gave him the sexual satisfaction he desired, why would he bother pursuing women? If men do that then they utterly smash the gynaecocracy’s dominion over them. Women’s power derives from their control over sex, both on a personal and a societal level and if men just say no, then what is left? And this is not about reproduction for, as many feminists have made much of, only a few men are needed to fertilise all the women. So the issue is power and power alone, which women are obsessed by.
Ladyboys and catamites of every order totally destroy female power, grub it out by the roots. Think: not only are they more beautiful than women, they are more sexually talented too, and they do not use sex as a weapon — ever. That is because they are as hungry for cock as men are to put theirs’ in them. It’s an almost-perfect bargain and women can have no part of it. No wonder they’re miffed. A social construction they developed over millennia to control and exploit men, is destroyed by a sweet beautiful boy with an angel’s face and a delightful love-tunnel. Yahoo!
The definition of homosexuality.
The desire to be anally penetrated is the definition of male homosexuality. It is the penetration that counts. Homosexual men are only attracted to other men because of their penises — and they are obsessed by those. As Madame Crisp said, ‘a homosexual man will never tell you how kind his partner is, or how good looking. He’ll just say “it’s enormous”‘.
Femiphobia, sissyphobia or just plain transphobia?
The absurd idea that homosexuality is about ‘same-sex attraction’ has been much vaunted by ‘gay’ activists in USica and elsewhere since the 1960s, because they think it will make mainstream society detest them less. In this they are just as misogynistic and transphobic as the actual men around them. They are desperate to hang on to that nice male status, while regularly having their anuses broadened, as Madame Crisp put it.
Western homosexual males are notorious for their hatred of all expressions of male femininity. Dr J. Michael Bailey calls this fear — of femininity — ‘femiphobia’. Dr Alice Dreger prefers ‘sissyphobia’. Well, I like calling spades spades, so I’ll call it what it really is — transphobia. Yes folks, Western homosexual men hate nothing — nothing — more than transsexuals. It does cast light on their widely-noted self-loathing, since they are but partly-formed transsexuals themselves.
‘Queer Theory’ — the ridiculous pile of unsupported pontification that has been spawned from the above deceit — insists that male homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with getting your arse in the air, munching pillows and screaming ‘Daddy’ while your clone retunes your colon. Oh no, it’s all about ‘lerve’. Which just goes to show that if you begin a philosophical expedition from a false premise, you end up in the shit.
There’s a boy across the river, with an arse like two plums in a sock.
And they have a secret weapon: men think beautiful boys are sexy. Oh yes they do. Now we are not advocating, in any way at all, sexual relations between adult men and young boys. This is taboo in Western civilisation because we recognise that children have rights. Nobody — I hope — would challenge this; children’s rights are a fundamental part of modern society. It is one of the things that make our culture superior to, say, Islam, where children have no rights.
But that does not mean that men don’t find beautiful boys sexy. Evolution takes a tad longer than the 250-odd years since the Enlightenment. Consider this ditty, courtesy of one Peter Cook and a product of a less prissy era;
‘Arseholes are cheap today,
Cheaper than yesterday,
Little boys are half a crown,
Standing up or lying down,
Bigger boys are three and six,
They can take bigger dicks,
Arseholes are cheap today.’
How can this be? Surely this notion cannot exist in a world where ‘homosexuality’ is all about ‘man-to-man lerve’? Of course not; it’s a blatant paean to raw lust. The whole point is that there’s no love at all involved — just the delight of sexual pleasure. It’s about lust, not love. (Does nobody ever wonder why the most popular ‘gay’ dating site is not called ‘Friendly Pink Blokes’ or ‘Meet a Nice Fella’? Why that site is actually called ‘Grindr’? I mean how literal do I have to be?)
So how can men be so obsessed with beautiful boys? Well, that delightful and very helpful old queen, Ms Crisp, explains it. ‘Men,’ she says, ‘Are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. They’re just sexual.’ The Naked Civil Servant.
Attraction is to gender, not to sex. Yes I know homosexuals are absolutely obsessed by what cocks can do to their most private parts, but they are still attracted to masculinity. The whole conniption of ‘same sex attraction’ is utter bull. It’s about spending all your day thinking about getting home and sitting on some cock — just the way ordinary men think about getting someone reasonably good-looking to sit on theirs.
If the target is feminine, that’s all that matters and beauty, in this context, is femininity. Men would fuck a decent-looking tree if that’s all there were handy, but they don’t have to, as long as there are willing, beautiful boys around. We may deny it, but it’s still true. This has a great many consequences, some not very good. But it’s still a fact.
This author, for all his worn appearance and the jaded world-view that you get if you’ve been observing humanity for six decades, was once a young beautiful boy himself. I remember being on an oil-rig in the North Sea — now there’s a macho environment. It was early summer and hot, so we roustabouts (deck hands) were all dressed in dungarees with no t-shirts, to stay cool. A very large Texan ‘company guy’ approached me and absent-mindedly-began to twiddle my nipple. This definitely constituted an unwanted sexual approach and I made myself scarce; there’s no doubt that had I not done so, he would have had me behind the cement silos and ruptured my virgin arse there and then.
But was he ‘gay’? Don’t be daft! No way would anybody get near his back passage. He was just a horny guy with a problem and the nearest woman was 400 miles away. Technically this is called ‘situational homosexuality’ but actually it’s just men being randy.
Think that was an isolated incident? One Texan too far from the nearest cute Palomino? Think again.
The next year, using the wodge of cash I earned plundering the Oil, I took a solo road trip to India, overland. Later I called it ‘following the Silk Road’ but actually I just kind of pointed myself towards the rising sun and found a bus going that general direction.
On the way to India, which took weeks of travel, I passed through Afghanistan; there was many a fine tale to regale you with from that den, but another time. Anyway, I have red-blond hair which in those days went very red in the sun and a ginger beard; and I have always looked younger than I am.
The first premonition that this might ummm cause me grief I had in Istanbul when I met a guy called Mike from Upstate New York. He’d spent two years doing VSO in Kabul. He said, ‘Afghanistan, huh? Watch it, they’re all buggers there.’
He was right. And they thought nothing of copping a feel to communicate their intentions. After six weeks in the place my arse was black and blue — but my anal virginity remained intact. Not without effort on my part.
(It gave me a great sympathy for women who find themselves similarly on the receiving end of unwanted sexual attentions. It’s the more horrifying when it’s a toothless one-eyed Pashtun with major body odour doing it, believe me. The fact that they were all armed to the teeth added a certain frisson too.)
But this illustrates a simple fact: cute boys are attractive to men. Technically, what men find attractive is called ‘neoteny’. It means ‘retention of youthful features’. That is what beauty is. In a way, however, it’s a misnomer: it should be ‘retention of non-masculine features’. Because, of course, masculinisation proceeds with age and the effects of testosterone, the two get conflated. But if we separate out the ‘non-masculine’ from the ‘youthful’ what do we get?
What we get is ladyboys.
I’ll tell you: ladyboys. Would you like me to repeat that? Ladyboys are just the modern expression of something that has been around for thousands of years — the beautiful catamite boy, who makes herself more feminine than women. Men have lusted after girls like this on every continent, throughout history, and absolutely nothing has changed.
So eat your hearts out, blue-haired feminist bitches. We men still have what we want and good luck taking them away again. Ladyboys, the modern beautiful boys, rool.