Originally posted 2022-10-26 14:51:20.
A few years living outside the particular circumstances of the Anglo-West forces a question: are ‘gays’ in the West homosexual at all? Is ‘homosexual’ a way of having sex, or does it refer to a personality type?
Ever since Kinsey entered the fray, there has been a concerted effort to avoid seeing ‘homosexual’ as a personality type and to use it instead to describe a way of having sex. But this is completely at odds not only with the global usage of the term, but also of the historical antecedents.
This is important because, as so often happens, an entire group of people has been ruthlessly erased to suit the political agenda of another one, this time because of their personality type. To understand that, we have to understand what the terms mean.
‘Gay’ is usually taken to mean ‘ homosexual’ and has been used in this context since the 1920s, in the West. However, the term is vague and today really applies to a lifestyle rather than a specific sexuality. Several classes of people inhabit that lifestyle, which adds to the confusion, since many of them do not conform to the homosexual personality type
Until the mid nineteenth century, the term ‘homosexual’ did not exist. However there were older words that exactly match the same sense and the best-known, in English, is ‘catamite’. This was developed from Ganymede, the beautiful boy whom Zeus kidnapped as his lover. Another term — which may even be from the same root — is kinaidos (Greek) or cinaedus (Latin.)
Homosexual is a personality type
The crucial thing to understand is that all of these terms refer to a personality type, not an activity. In former days, men didn’t think twice about penetrating other males, if there were no women handy. Usually these sexual partners were juvenile boys, who might have been slaves. Often they were ‘towel boys’ in Roman bath houses, and Roman soldiers were famous for taking boys like this on campaign with them — presumably because they offered sexual satisfaction with no risk of pregnancy, unlike a girl-slave.
This understanding of male sex — that it was an activity that did not impact one’s status, as long as one were penetrating, and that a homosexual is a particular personality type, remains the norm all over the world and is largely so, even today in the West.
When they became too masculine, they were retired and moved on to other work. It is true that the best looking and most talented in bed would often be castrated around the age of thirteen or fourteen, which would have changed their outlook, but these were slaves — and so had no choice — and they lived in a culture where anal sex was commonplace.
Similar models were found in Imperial China, the Otttoman empire, in Japan and in India, as well as across southeast Asia, where anal sex with feminised boys remains a popular activity for heterosexual men.
What about the cinaedus, though? His position was different. While nobody thought twice about an adolescent lad lifting his tunic for an older man, the assumption was that he would stop that and become a penetrator, as he got older. If he refused this and instead desired to continue to play the submissive sexual role, only then was he a cinaedus.
Pathic older men, that is, those who enjoyed a passive sexual role even long after reaching adult age, were stereotyped in antiquity as cinaedi… A cinaedus was assumed to be effeminate and deficient in the capabilities of control expected of adult men.
In other words, the cinaedus, as well as being sexually receptive, was feminine in appearance and in manners.
Again, this model is widespread and was particularly prevalent across the Islamosphere, where it persists to this day. Essentially, while sex between adult men is banned, boys, not being adult, are legitimate sexual targets.
The older terms, including catamite, are cognate to the modern ‘homosexual’ and describe a personality type.
There is plenty of historical and current evidence that the concept of catamite was well-known and that this is what was meant by ‘homosexual’: a male who was effeminate and desired to be the submissive sexual partner of dominant males, who would pedicate him. He was unmanly, feminine, impotent with women and unable to control his passions.
So, homosexual clearly does refer to a personality type. It is not a way of having sex. If ‘being homosexual’ were defined by one’s sexual behaviour, some males who are clearly homosexual, would not be classed as such. Why? Because since Freud observed this, we have known that a significant number of homosexuals do not have sex at all!
What about all those ‘masculine’ homosexuals though?
But this idea is rejected nor only by the opponents of homosexuality as a personality type, like Kinsey himself and later Larry Houston, but also by many ‘gays’ in the West today — though not at all in Asia. So what is going on? Why do so many ‘gays’ present in a masculine manner? Why won’t they accept being feminine?
This conundrum — of the apparently masculine ‘gay’ male — is hard to understand and this has been made more difficult by legions of ‘queer theorists’ whose intention seems to be to obfuscate. To explain it, we need to look at the origins of the homosexual male. Today, there is a consensus around the idea that both ‘feminine homosexual males’ and homosexual transsexual males, are affected by conditions in utero such that they do not masculinise. This idea was first mooted by Ulrichs and promoted by others including Hirschfeldt but most effectively by Henry Havelock Ellis, whose body of work on this remains seminal.
So, one class of homosexual male is innately sexually inverted from birth, indeed prior to it. There is really no convincing evidence to counter this except for the problem of the ‘masculine male gay’. Many have suggested that the existence of these people torpedoes the ‘sexual inversion theory’, not least ‘gay activists’ themselves.
If ‘being gay’ is innate, then there must be a physiological cause.
If ‘homosexual’ describes an innate personality type, then an innate cause must apply. This was identified long ago as ‘Congenital Sexual Inversion’ by, amongst others, Henry Havelock Ellis. If it is learned behaviour, then it could as easily be unlearned, with appropriate assistance. ‘Gay’ activists hate this idea — it would be creating apostates — but at the same time refuse the Sexual Inversion explanation. But homosexuality must be either an innate quality or a learned behaviour. If it is innate, there must be a prior cause; if it’s learned, it can be unlearned.
Unfortunately, ‘gays’ have long since rejected the Sexual Inversion theory while at the same time denying that their behaviour is learned. This is clearly an absurd position to take.
Look at it another way
What if we look at it another way: that there are two causes for ‘gayness’, not one. Let’s allow the innate form. Let’s accept all that goes with it — lightness of build, small stature, baby-face, voice and so on — and just set that to one side. What about all the big, hulking ‘gays’ who simply don’t fit that model? Well, maybe they’re another type altogether.
In his studies of male transgender and transsexualism, Dr Ray Blanchard posited two forms: homosexual transsexual and Autogynephilic non-homosexual. This taxonomy is well supported — although disliked by many in the latter group. This group is characterised by a sexual attraction to themselves in the form of women.
While, according to Blanchard, this may be a ‘potential’ rather than being acted on, this group all have it. It is therefore a narcissistic condition, though not Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The former group have characteristics similar to our definition of ‘homosexual’ above — they are smaller, slighter, prettier, as children dislike typical boy play and identify as girls. This is not true of the latter group, who are the bigger, more masculine ones.
We can triage men in the ‘gay’ lifestyle in a number of ways but one would provide a group of what we might call ‘congenital homosexuals’ and then this other group, who appear to be erotically stimulated by the image of themselves as masculine men. They have a narcissistic self-love that we can call ‘Autoandrophilia’ or AAP, after the Blanchard model.
Professor Sam Vaknin has written eloquently about how this model of ‘gay’ is attracted to the mirror image of himself. His assessment is accurate of our AAP group, but doesn’t fit well with the ‘congenital homosexual’ group, since they are never narcissistically attracted to others like themselves. Instead they are attracted to conventionally masculine males. However, let’s bear Vaknin’s insight in mind.
AAP men typically will attempt to ‘hyper-masculinise’ themselves. They will work out, visit the gym a lot, possibly take extra testosterone. They are hostile to femininity in both themselves and others.
Our congenital homosexual might well be attracted to these men but has a real problem, because the AAP man rejects femininity and will not allow his partners to display any. A quick look through sites like ‘Grindr’ will reveal many examples of ‘no fems’, ‘masc only’, ‘masc for masc’ and so on. In other words, highly feminine congenital homosexuals are being told ‘You are unacceptable to us. Either become masculine or go away.’
This leaves the congenital homosexual in a terrible position, in the West. The conventional masculine males he seeks will not entertain him, because they can identify him as homosexual and they think that sexual contact with such a male would make them homosexual themselves — a claim, by the way, that not even Kinsey himself made.
(The notion that homosexuality is contagious is widespread across the world,)
Gayness as a badge and political statement.
Autoandrophilic males are not concerned by this — they wear their ‘gayness’ as a badge and flaunt it as much and as offensively as they can — but they are extremely repulsed by femininity: they are gynophobic. So while a congenital homosexual male might well be attracted to such a person, he will be rejected on the grounds that he is ‘too feminine’.
The only time this might not work is when the congenital homosexual is very young and appears to be a sexy adolescent boy. Typically, people with paraphilias like autogynephilia and autoandrophilia ‘time-travel.’ That is, they are attracted to those who remind them of themselves (as either women or men) at the time that their condition set on, which is typically around puberty. Since they are attracted sexually to the image of themselves, a representation of their youthful idealised self (not necessarily their actual self) becomes irresistible.
The problem here for the congenital homosexual is that he lives in a culture which despises femininity, so he will be discouraged from using the hormones that would arrest his masculinisation. Unfortunately, time will pass and he will get older; and soon finds that the men who were once so interested are now pursuing younger meat and cries herself to sleep alone.
Her choices are invidious: she could masculinise herself and become like those who once preyed on her. But she has no interest in pretty boys, which is how she sees herself. She could simply give up sex — which many do. Or, she could find another like herself and settle into something like a lesbian relationship, probably with little or no actual sex.
The only way she could avoid this horrible trilemma would be to feminise herself completely through dress, hormones and perhaps surgery, then pursue heterosexual men. To do that she must absolutely be able to pass completely as a woman — so she would have to start very early, perhaps at age twelve or so. But the ‘gay’ lifestyle in the West is implacably hostile to that, since it wants the fresh meat she represents as a boy. It will do everything it can to stop her, allied of course, with the odious TERF/GC movement, another brainchild of the nation of the brain-dead, USica.
It appears therefore as if there are two major elements to male homosexuality in the West, not one. The first is congenital homosexuality, which lies on a scale of with homosexual transsexualism and indeed, is often called ‘transgender homosexuality’. The other is provoked by a narcissistic paraphilia which focusses on the self as the Erotic Target — but as a man.
When we look at it this way, we see that there are strong similarities between this and transgender expressions. In the transgender forms, there is one group made up of congenital homosexuals, that is, males with innate sexual inversion, who tend to be small, light, pretty, delicate, artistically talented and so on, and who were markedly feminine as children. There is another group which is not like that, who are non-homosexual and who are driven by a form of auto-eroticism called Autogynephilia. In these, the latter tend to dominate the former, frequently sexually predate on them, constantly talk over them and dominate the political agenda.
In the non-transgender forms, there are two groups exactly cognate to the above, one being made up of individuals with innate sexual inversion and the other made up of narcissists with an extreme auto-erotic fetish, this time on themselves as masculine men. as above, they predate on the innate group (because they remind them of themselves when they were young), dominate their space, talk over them and colonise the political agenda.
That leaves us with, in my opinion, little choice. We should recognise that ‘homosexual’ does indeed describe an innate personality type, and not merely a behaviour. As far as males are concerned, we need to protect the innate sexual inverts and the best way to do that is to assist them to complete as women. Observation in Asia makes it quite clear that such individuals are happy, well adjusted and find partners easily. Once again, the West, its notions corrupted by USican beliefs, is wrong, and Asian Way is better.
Let them be girls: they’re hopeless at being men anyway.