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 1953. Originally, the term meant ‘an unmasculine male’ and so conformed exactly to Asian terms like bakla and kathoey, and to similar terms globally.
The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19th century by an Austrian-born Hungarian psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert and was quickly adopted by others. The term ‘homosexual’ 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.
This understanding of the word homosexual was compromised by Alfred Kinsey, who rejected the association with a personality type — the unmasculine male — and instead changed its meaning to refer to specific acts, carried out between individuals of the same sex, initially males. Kinsey did refer to ‘the homosexual’ but it is clear that he had invented a new meaning for the word, one more consistent with his work method.
The Kinsey scale, also called the Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating Scale, is used in research to describe a person’s sexual orientation based on one’s experience or response at a given time.
The Kinsey Institute, which carries on today states that:
‘An official Kinsey “test” does not exist, which is contrary to popular belief and many tests across the web. The original Kinsey research team assigned a number based on a person’s sexual history’
Clearly, Kinsey was not thinking about a person’s social presentation, but only about that person’s history of sexual activity. In other words, ‘homosexual’ became ‘a person who has sex with others of the same sex.’ This left out many of those originally covered by the word, and included many who, on no other measure, could be considered to be ‘homosexual’. However, it suited Kinsey’s approach — a classic case of framing the question to fit the desired answer.
Kinsey did this because he believed a priori that sexuality must follow the same scale of variation he applied to fruit flies. But simple analysis of his own results shows that this is incorrect. More recent research is significantly at odds with Kinsey, suggesting that sexuality is not a continuum at all, but rather a modified binary.
Kinsey’s view became standard in the West — but not elsewhere — after 1969, when the so-called ‘gay liberation’ movement was birthed. In particular, the leaders of this movement were determined to kill off the ‘Sexual Inversion’ theory, which posited that homosexuals were as they were because they were innately psycho-sexually inverted. If they had sex, they did it as they did because of their natures. How they had sex did not define them, their personalities did. If Kinsey were right and sexuality was a spectrum, then the Inversion theory could not fit that.
Again, however, research beginning in the 1960s showed that prenatal exposure to varied levels of testosterone and oestrogen would masculinise or feminise the young. This research, which has been replicated many times, strongly supports the Sexual Inversion theory and adds no weight to Kinsey.
There was another problem. If sexual acts between men were homosexual, the logic went, then surely the men involved must be homosexual. Indeed this appears to have been Kinsey’s point, when he used the term ‘the homosexual’. This understanding quickly gained ground in the USA, where Rationalism achieves the obtuse, and spread to Britain soon after.
This meant that conventional masculine men who only ever penetrated, suddenly became ‘homosexual’ along with highly feminine males who only received — but not those feminine males who were celibate. This was compounded by leaders of the new male homosexual movement, the New Gay Man, who insisted that the homosexuality be shared between the partners in sex acts between males, willy-nilly. As a result, even the highly feminine males were now expected to ‘return the favour’ and to penetrate their partners.
Kinsey: terminally obtuse. Sucking cock is just sucking cock.
There are no ‘homosexual’ acts. Sucking cock is just sucking cock and anal sex is just anal sex. Since these can be performed between a man and a woman, how can they be inherently ‘homosexual’? You cannot go around categorising people as different because they do things that everyone else does. An act could be between two individuals of the same sex, but to call it a ‘homosexual act’ ignores the fact that it could as easily be between individuals of opposite sexes. Is it ‘homosexual’ for a man to penetrate his woman anally? Is it ‘homosexual’ for her to suck his dick?
Kinsey: mechanistic and anti-human
At the same time, this mechanistic and anti-human definition completely ignores gender. If someone who appears to be a man has sex with someone who appears to be a woman but is in fact male, is that a homosexual act? What if she’s a pre-operative transwoman? Is he homosexual if he sucks her dick — and then penetrates her anally? To Kinsey, a taxonomist obsessed by labels, yes, even if the feminine party was stunningly beautiful and completely convincing as a woman.
But gender is the basis of sexual and romantic attraction. We are not attracted to sex, no matter how much the New Gay Man apologists might squeal. We are attracted to gender. How can a man possibly be ‘homosexual’ for being attracted to a beautiful woman? And so, how could an act of sex with her be a homosexual act? Of course it could not.
Kinsey lied, Sexuality cannot be reduced to taxonomies of sexual acts
The reduction of human sexuality and gender to sexual acts could only have come from a mind like Kinsey’s. A man who did nothing but label, who never, ever looked into the deeper meaning of things; a man for whom imagination was anathema. His reports are a nightmare of numbers after numbers from which one can only learn that Dr Kinsey, if he had vision, never employed it.
Sexuality and gender are much more complicated than a strict taxonomy of the minutiae of sexual acts could encompass. Such an arbitrary triage takes no account of love, attraction, beauty, compassion — indeed, it might be talking about the mechanical properties of Ford engines — number of cylinders, bore and stroke, firing order, swept volume. But we are not mechanical things, we are human. (I have read serious technical manuals that are less crushing than the Kinsey Reports.) We cannot be measured in mechanistic terms. Kinsey was categorically wrong, but his approach has done massive damage, not least to all the feminine males.
If ‘homosexual’ does mean ‘unmasculine male’ then what does that mean? If one is not masculine, then one is feminine. That simple. So if a male is feminine, why should she not appear to be as feminine as she can? Why should she not make of herself a highly desirable woman — perhaps not entirely the same as a woman, but far closer to that than to a man? A genuine sex symbol?
Transsexuals are high-level homosexuals. Forget the Jeeps.
When people in the West — because they misuse the term ‘homosexual’ — assume that actually it means a masculine man who has sex with other masculine men, they are wrong. That is why, when they go to Asia or southern Europe or Latin America and meet beautiful women who call themselves ‘gay’ their heads burst. On the one hand they have bought the lie that both parties in a sexual act between two males are ‘homosexual’, thanks to Kinsey. So they think that the attraction they do feel to these women challenges their own masculinity; they know they are not homosexual themselves, so they cannot process this. That inability was what got Jennifer Laude killed.
On the other, they have been taught that it is how a person has sex that defines whether that person is homosexual; but everywhere outside the West, it is the way a person is that defines how that person will have sex. Boys go with girls and girls go with boys — even if the girls were born boys and the boys were born girls. Once again, the Apollonian view, so harsh and incapable of nuance, is left floundering, unable to deal with these concepts.
The original definition of homosexual — an unmasculine male — is the right one. It conforms to similar terms used all over the world. It describes a personality type which is often associated with a set of physical characteristics. These in turn suggest that there is some innate quality, usually called Sexual Inversion, that causes such males to be more like females in appearance, manners and tastes.
Transing away the gay? Fucking great idea.
This is why the phrase, becoming common today, ‘transing away the gay’ is so absurd. The natural condition for a male homosexual is to be feminine. And if she is feminine, then why should she pull punches? Remember, this person is male and competitive, like other males. If she’s going to compete with women for men, she’s going to compete. Why should she adopt a social presentation that suits some loudmouthed USicans, when she could just be a woman and go manhunting? All she needs is a strip of contraceptives from the corner store, no doctors need be involved. After all, that is exactly what homosexual males all over the planet actually do and damn are they good at it. They are so good at it that they are amongst the most beautiful women in the world.
Why then, should her lovers be shamed? They are not homosexual. They are attracted to her beauty, to her femininity, just as they are to those of other women. So what if she’s carrying an ounce or two of extra weight? All males have a perfectly functional substitute for a vagina that is well capable of satisfying a lover — and transsexuals are no exception.
No such thing as a ‘gay man’ They’re failed transsexuals.
Westerners, especially USicans, need to wake up to the fact that they are the weirdos, in this and many other things. They are the minority but like empty barrels everywhere, they do make a lot of noise. There is no such thing as a ‘gay man’. It is an oxymoron and worse, a political sleight of hand. All homosexual males are potential transsexuals and we should respect that; indeed, we should assist them to be ‘all the woman they can be’.