Any man who willingly has sex with a woman is NOT homosexual. Period. That is because ‘homosexual’ means ‘someone exclusively attracted to same sex from childhood’. A man who willingly has sex with both men and women is bisexual, irrespective of how he describes himself. That applies also to those men who ‘discover’ they are ‘gay’ in later life, after years of marriage. They’re bisexual, not homosexual.
Homosexual male does not equal ‘gay’
Homosexual males are attracted to masculinity, because they have an inversion of sexuality. However, ‘gay’ is actually a lifestyle which comprises homosexual men but also bisexuals, ephebephiles and hebophiles (attracted to teenage boys, basically) non-trans autogynephiles whose fetish for ‘being a woman’ is being penetrated, super-masculine narcissistic homosexuals and even others. And these are all real things, not airhead genders. There is no one ‘homosexual’ lifestyle, despite the ongoing efforts of the New Gay Man thought police to ensure everyone (actually, everyone at all) is properly ensconced under their appropriate label in the LBTQalphabet permitted lifestyle and orientation set.
(A brief History of Homo, Part 2) In hypermasculine ‘egalitarian’ homosexuality, the basis of the New Gay Man cult, the individual’s Erotic Target, is himself, in the form of a masculine man. This results from the peculiar social conditions he operates in.
The New Gay Man is an individual with Sexual Inversion, that is to say, he is male, but has female or passive sexuality.
(In sexuality) activity is put into operation by the instinct for mastery through the agency of the somatic musculature (the body); the organ which, more than any other, represents the passive sexual aim is the erotogenic mucous membrane of the anus.
Feature pic: apparently Sir Ian thinks ‘gay men’ are more masculine than straight men. Well, women are better judges of this than men…but really I think it’s because we don’t have to try as hard as gays.
The New Gay Man is the name I give to the ‘hypermasculine’ type of male homosexual which has become dominant in the West, though not elsewhere. This type pursues ‘masc4masc’ relationships and is intensely hostile to any sign of femininity. Crucially, however, it only became dominant in the last half-century. Today, it is being challenged by a resurgent and older form of male-male love and is reacting against this, stamping down on opposition. We should ask why and how has all this come about?
For many years now, the New Gay Man’s promoters, speaking through activists from Jim Fouratt to Peter Tatchell, have claimed that HomoSexual TransSexuals (HSTS) are a form of ‘failed gay man’. But is this true?
No. In fact, far from completed Sexual Inverts (homosexual transsexuals) being ‘failures’, all feminine homosexual males are transsexual but for various reasons some repress or deny this — as demanded of them by the New Gay Man cult.
A random and I must admit mischievous Google search—the masculine gay male is a fraud—really turned into an eye-opener for me. I was just amazed how many men seem to have bought into this crap.
Masculine behaviour is no guide to sexual orientation, and never has been. I spent nearly two decades as a very high level sports photographer, and if it taught me anything it was that sports—in particular contact field sports—while often considered the epitome of masculinity, are about the most strident expression of male homo-eroticism that exists in our culture. I have long since lost count of the number of times I have seen men cuddling, kissing, gazing into each other’s eyes, feeling each other up, rolling around on the ground, you fucking name it—all on a soccer pitch. And rugby? It’s worse. And that’s what goes on in public—let’s not mention what happens inside the dressing-rooms.
So-called ‘homosexuality’, as it is known in the Anglo-West is almost non-existent outside it, despite efforts being continually made to revise history. That is because in all other places and at all other times, sex between males was strictly limited to sex between men and boys or older youths and younger boys, and sex between men and catamites who had permanently adopted the appearance and social role of women — mukhannathun — or today, ladyboys.
In the “homosocial” world of the early Ottoman Arab East, sexual symbolism was never far from the surface. Yet actual sexual intercourse between adult men was clearly perceived as an anomaly, linked either to violence (rape) or disease (ubnah).
However, sex between men and boys was practically universal in the Islamosphere, which for centuries was far more relaxed about this than the Christian world.
Sexual relations between men and boys in the early Ottoman Arab East were almost always conceived as involving an adult man (who stereotypically would be the “male” partner) and an adolescent boy (the “female”).
A political idea came to the fore in the USA during the 1960s which insisted that the best strategy for gay ‘men’ was hiding in plain sight.
To that end they said ‘You have to not be feminine, you have to be masculine like the other guys. There’s to be no more of this floating around in dresses, flicking your hair and doing all the rest of that stuff. That’s got to stop. You have to act like normal guys would.’ Hiding in plain sight became an obsession and the basis of a lifestyle.
To understand the development of trans culture in the West, you need to understand the development of the contemporary face of male homosexuality, The New Gay Man. He’s not as old as you think.
We have become used, in the West, to a particular type of homosexual men: outwardly masculine, good-looking, well-dressed, often cultured. It has become such a commonplace that today it would be easy to think that this representation of male homosexuality, the New Gay Man, has always existed and is, indeed, the only such presentation. In fact, the aim of many gay activists is to persuade the public that the New Gay Man is all homosexual men have ever been. But this is nonsense.
It horrifies me that in 2022 I still have to say this: There is no such thing as a ‘gay child’.
Even what is meant by ‘child’ as been deliberately obscured. As a result we have to specify what one is, since some USicans apparently think it’s anyone under the age of thirty. Well, the USA is the motherlode of bad ideas, after all. But we can’t really discuss the concept of a ‘gay child’ without knowing what a child is. Seems fairly basic.
A child is, specifically, a young person who has not yet reached puberty. Age of puberty varies, but it is usually in the eleven to thirteen age range in males, with a few outliers. So we are talking about individuals — in this case, male ones — under the age of twelve or so. And note, only those. Adolescents are not children.
Does homosexuality exist, other than as a collection of sexual practices? How can it be seen as a separate sexuality at all? After all, sexuality admits only two roles, the male, or active, and the female or passive. In inter-male sex particularly, one party must play the female and the other the male role. This is axiomatic. So for the duration of the sexual encounter they are adopting conventional sex roles. Yes folks, one of them has to be a girl. On the other hand homosexuality, as understood today, implies attraction. Are there really big strong masculine men out there who are attracted to other big strong masculine men? And if so, what happens to the recipient, when he is anally seduced? Can he remain a man? Impossible. He is performing female sexuality and so must himself be female. Which ever way you crack it, this egg devolves to the conventional sex roles of inserter and insertee.
I was set off down this line of thought by a recent throw-away comment by JK Rowling, the author, who said that ‘If there is no sex, then there is no same-sex attraction.’ Well, I ask again, is there any such thing at all? And why should we get so exercised about it? The fact is that the currently dominant Western model, the New Gay Man, simply did not exist until around 1970 and still is restricted to the Anglo-Saxon West. Why is what might well be a passing phase — especially given that there are thousands, probably tens of thousands of years of historical record describing other forms of inter-male sex — so revered? Why is ‘gay’ on a pedestal, untouchable and apparently above criticism?