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.
The gay lifestyle is legitimised pederasty, of the most exploitative and abusive kind.
For decades now, we have been force-fed the idea that the gay lifestyle is all about sweet young boys loving each other. And what could be so wrong with that? But that is not what the Western ‘gay lifestyle’ is about at all.
Most males in the gay lifestyle are not actually homosexuals. I used the ‘s’ there deliberately, because ‘homosexual’ does not describe a behaviour, it describes a personality type. In previous eras these might have been known as ‘catamites’ and even ‘eunuchs’ — even, as Philo of Alexandria tells us, when they retained male genitalia.
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”).
It has become fashionable, in the West, to ascribe certain meanings to the word homosexual that were not intended when it was coined. This began with the publication of the Kinsey Reports in 1948. Originally, the term meant ‘an unmasculine male who is receptive in sex with other males’ and so conformed exactly to Asian terms like bakla and kathoey, and to similar terms globally, for example travesti in Brazil. It also was a direct equivalent to terms like catamite, as well as others. Today we might usefully use the word bottom in the vernacular.
It was coined in the late 19th century by an Austrian-born Hungarian psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert and was quickly adopted by others. The term applied exclusively to a type of person. It did not refer to a set of acts, as there were already terms for those, such as sodomy and buggery. Indeed, many homosexuals did not even engage in these acts, as Freud noted. The crucial issue was the subjects’ rejection of masculinity in themselves.
Nearly all Sex Atypical boys, if they persist, will become adult Homosexual transsexuals (HSTS) or pseudo-masculine Homosexuals. These are exclusively attracted to masculine men. This has been established beyond doubt and one would have thought that, in our enlightened era, we would be happy to go along with this. But a movement has coalesced that aims to challenge this: the ‘gender critical’ movement.
Characteristics of Sex Atypical boys
The obvious clustering of physical and behavioural characteristics around childhood Sex Atypical boys, makes it clear that these individuals are naturally shifted towards opposite-sex norms. In other words, people who are Sex Atypical in childhood are naturally so.
Which type they will develop into, the True Transsexual or HSTS, or the pseudo-masculine gay, cannot be predicted in childhood. To attempt to condition them towards one or the other — almost exclusively, in the West, towards the pseudo-masculine form, is grossly abusive, yet it is clearly what the gender-crit movement exists to do.
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.
Okay. So, maybe you just woke up after a wild night, looked over the bed and there beside you, happily dreaming away without a care in the world and looking as though butter wouldn’t melt, was a ladyboy; or, if you prefer, a transsexual. Possibly you’re just considering doing this. Maybe you did already, liked it, and are wondering about yourself. Maybe you’re in a relationship with a ladyboy and still confused. So I’m going to answer the question, ‘Am I gay for having sex with a ladyboy’?
This is a pretty popular question, as you’ll see from a casual Google of the terms, but almost none of the answers make any sense. They’re either written by people who have no experience of transsexuals, ladyboys, bonecas — call them as you will, they’re all the same — or they’re written by people with a hidden agenda, trying to promote a particular political point of view.
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?