Originally posted 2022-06-09 16:00:54.
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.
For many Homosexuals hiding in plain sight was difficult because they wanted to be girly. They are actually girly boys and it’s hard for them to be masculine. It’s not natural for them. They may suffer gender dysphoria from trying.
The idea that sexuality and gender are somehow separated is a nonsense. It’s a convenient fiction invented for political reasons and we can just disregard it, because it’s not true. All ‘gay’ men are feminine although some might try to be masculine [Halperin]; but trust me we know better.
This movement towards hiding in plain sight is called accommodationism and it became strong at the time of the Vietnam War. Young men were being drafted into a foreign war they didn’t want to fight in. This caused a reaction against authority and one way to express that was to do exactly what the authorities didn’t want — indulge in same-sex activities.
Soldiers have always been enthusiastic about these. For example, Roman soldiers were famous for their love of boys. There were special markets in Rome where legionaries could buy boys to take on campaign with them. After the defeat of the Turkish army at Vienna in 1683, thousands of boys, who had been taken as comfort for the men, were slaughtered in a shocking act of spite which no Muslim will ever tell you about.
Military life is naturally conducive to what is called ‘situational homosexuality’, which is why the Japanese arranged for their men to have ‘comfort women’. The command knew that their soldiers were already partial to sex with other males but they thought it undignified — and apparently, raping Chinese women was not.
Developing their taste for homosexual acts in the forces supplied more for the soldiers in Vietnam, however, than just sex. It was also a big ‘Fuck you’ to the Command. This is probably where the Western ‘gay’ lifestyle developed its extreme left-wing bias, which persists to this day and is in marked opposition to equivalent lifestyles elsewhere.
This did something that had never been seen before. It elevated sex to a political position. Note that it was, per Alfred Kinsey, only the act that counted; any sex — of any nature, between two males — was ‘homosexual’ in his definition and that, to the broader public, meant that both parties were ‘homosexuals’. That this was in diametric opposition to all previous definitions of the word did not concern Kinsey, who was a notorious academic bully. But it was important because now, sex between males was to be ‘egalitarian’ — which USicans have something of an obsession about.
The new masculinist gay movement, the New Gay Man, loved Kinsey because he rejected the idea of Sexual Inversion, which explained that a male could be born feminine and vice versa for a female. Instead it was just about sex, an act, not a set of innate characteristics. Of course, the men behind this were too busy thinking about sex to understand the inevitable contradiction: if ‘homosexual’ was just a learned behaviour, then it could be unlearned too. Preferences, even sexual ones, can be changed; innate characteristics cannot.
One could encapsulate the accommodationist and now ‘egalitarian’ philosophy by saying that ‘homosexuals’ are just like everybody else, but they love each other. That is actually one of their slogans.
The trouble is that hiding in plain sight only works under Kinsey’s definition. All previous definitions of homosexual described ‘an unmasculine man attracted to masculine men’ (and vice versa for women). Their partners were emphatically not ‘homosexual’, they were heterosexual, often married. Kinsey knew this and devoted several pages in his study to attempting to shore up his definition, presumably aware that it was weak.
This was because, as others including Freud had noted, many Homosexuals do not have sex with other males, although they might be attracted to them. And of course, the partners of those who did were manifestly masculine, often married. Kinsey, however, was a taxonomist with no training in social science. Perhaps he lacked the subtlety of wit to realise that his definition would exclude large numbers of men who were Homosexuals and include many who were not. More likely, he realised that trying to measure ‘femininity’ was a fool’s errand, so he needed to cook the books. A true nuts and bolts man, he mirrored much of USican thought, that ‘If it can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist.’ This is not a promising basis for the study of human sexuality.
In practical terms, Kinsey had two consequences: one was to bolster hiding in plain sight, because ‘being homosexual’ was no longer about a personality type, but about basic bodily functions. It was reduced to the level of constipation. As anyone who has studied art will tell you, ‘I know what I like’ actually means ‘I like what I know’ and a little exposure to the unknown may work wonders. As with art, so with sex. If the accommodationists are right, then it should be possible to condition someone out of liking ‘homosexual sex’ as easily as training him to like Picasso. (Of course, they’re not.)
Another was to send the men who might occasionally like a bit of pansy, especially young and pretty pansy, running for cover (and Pattaya). They had no interest in being accused of being ‘homosexual’ because they had a fondness for boy culo — and let us never forget that nasty queens like Peter Tatchell would ‘out’ them if they could. These men rightly pointed out that they remained the penetrators in all cases, so how could they be Homosexuals? Kinsey and his followers had no coherent answer to that, except to bluster louder.
I get regular emails and messages through my site saying how awful it is to be a feminine Homosexual male in the United States. Not only would you be ostracized by society, particularly if you lived in a small town which was a little parochial, you would also be shunned by the people you thought would support you, who would say ‘No you’re too feminine, we don’t want anything to do with you because you attract attention to us. We can’t hide our femininity when you’re near.’
Hiding in plain sight, egalitarianism if you will, is basically the denial of reality: that Homosexual males are feminine.
The egalitarianists became almost totally dominant in the West by 1980, but then they were hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This was especially damaging because the only available badge of ‘homosexual’ identity — now that Kinsey had torpedoed effeminacy and Sexual Inversion was regarded as infra dig — was to have lots of sex with lots of different men. Tales of men having sex with forty other men, sequentially, in one evening, are not uncommon. Men’s anal muscles became so damaged that they had to wear sanitary towels, since they leaked all the time. The result is well known; the egalitarian, ‘clone’ gay was almost wiped out.
In the 1990s, as the epidemic still raged, a new phenomenon appeared, the ‘queer’. This identity was far less based on sexual practice than on appearance and behaviours. Queers looked effeminate but actually were far less promiscuous or prone to dangerous behaviour than the clones had been. They still had sex but this was often in the context of a more stable relationship. (Clone relationships typically lasted less than twenty minutes.) Queers did not seek to have sex with forty men in a night, but they did want to be fabulous. This adoption of safer behaviour certainly saved many lives.
Around 2000 the terror of HIV/AIDS began to abate and with it, the queers’ fortunes began to fade too. In the 1990s and 2000s, cultural representations of ‘homosexual’ males had largely been identifiably queer. Many television programmes were made as well as feature films, which celebrated ‘queerness’ and the fact that they were different — they had more style, they were good dancers and so on — veering very lose at times to the old, pre-Kinsey understanding. In Britain, comedians like Julian Clary foregrounded their effeminacy and even straight performers like Russell Brand affected it — when in fact he is not a Homosexual.
Transsexuals: extremely feminine Homosexuals.
There was a group which had been almost killed off by the egalitarianists, quite deliberately. These were the most extremely feminine males, who are often unable to live as men. Hiding in plain sight is not an option for them. Like all feminine Homosexuals they are Sexually Inverted as a result of anomalies in hormone delivery in utero. If they complete as women, they are called Homosexual Transsexuals or HSTS.
These feminised males are prominent everywhere outside the West, as they had been in it prior to Kinsey. (Chauncey) It had been a central plank of the egalitarian platform to completely eradicate this group and by the 1990s, in the West, they had almost succeeded. HSTS were an extreme rarity.
But then we had the Internet, mobile phones and social media. People in the West discovered that in other countries there were populations of what looked like women but were actually male. ‘Chicks with dicks’, ‘shemales’, ‘ladyboys’ and others. This awareness led directly to a resurgence of Homosexual Transsexuals.
These phenomena torpedoed the claim, made by feminists and the New Gay Man amongst others, that ‘gender and sexuality are not linked’. Here was a group which proved beyond any question that link, because they were feminine in appearance in order to attract men. They were as they are from childhood, perhaps showing clear cross-gender identification from three or four years old. These existed in the West but had been suppressed by the New Gay Man, his tame headshrinkers and our old friends the radical feminists. If this group realised that they could be successful as women, they would escape the clutches of the New Gay Man. ‘Egalitarian’ Western homosexuality might even collapse. (We can’t wait.)
Secondly, men began to question why desiring sex with what appeared in every way to be a stunningly beautiful girl made them Homosexuals. Just as men who dallied with old-style Homosexuals in the West, prior to Kinsey, had understood themselves, they were masculine men who were partial to a bit of culo. And if the culo belonged to a conventionally attractive, feminine person, well then.
The third effect was that suddenly, men realised that Transsexuals were simply gorgeous. After decades in which this term had been appropriated by hideous tiffs in skirts, and ugly middle-aged men with death-face, they were revealed to be the most beautiful women anywhere. Cue meltdown from the harpies, the New Gay Man and the jeeps.
A Shortage of Women
A wise fellow once wrote: ‘The only reason homosexuality exists is a shortage of women.’ This is true. While there always has been and always will be Sexual Inversion, men will not go with Inverts unless women attractive enough are unavailable, or will not engage in the kind of sex the men want. Use your logic. There are hundreds of women for every Invert and the imbalance is more the prettier and more feminine the Invert. Finding an HSTS takes effort and men are parsimonious. If they could just nip down the pub and pick up a hot totty, they would do it. They only travel half way round the world to find a partner if they have to.
The third and perhaps most important effect has been to cause men to question what homosexuality actually is. They have been told, per Kinsey, the New Gay Man and feminists, that it is, effectively, two cocks and four balls in the same bed — and that’s all it is. Doesn’t matter how beautiful she is; doesn’t matter if she’s completely sexually receptive; doesn’t matter that her back pussy is just a sweet as a front one. Doesn’t matter that she’s more attentive and caring than a woman or that she’s totally devoted to you. Doesn’t matter if you’re completely masculine and have no attraction to men at all, or that you are a husband, a father, an alpha male and in no way feminine.
None of that matters, just an asinine definition made up by a loudmouth academic on the make who was not a psychologist, or a sexologist, or even a medical doctor — just an entomologist who collected fruit-flies. That’s all. A taxonomist, a classifier of things, a number-cruncher. How did that qualify him?
Nobody agrees with USicans
Kinsey’s results were wrong because Kinsey’s method was wrong and that was because he didn’t understand the subject. Simple as that. But he set back progress for half a century and counting. The USA needs to learn humility, that it is but 4% of the world’s population and that in this, nobody else agrees with it.
A homosexual is an unmasculine male. Same as a ladyboy, a bakla, a waria, a beki, a gutoey, a kathoey, a bencong, an ocama and dozens of others. That’s all. To be a Homosexual male all you have to do is not be masculine. You don’t even have to have sex. If you are masculine — and I don’t mean the fake masculinity of the New Gay Man — then you by definition are not a homosexual. Ellis was right and Kinsey was wrong.
How To Be Gay
Gay New York
Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940