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?
Most writers from before around 1950 reveal a strong consistency of view: homosexual males were highly feminised and homosexual females highly masculinised. Further and perhaps more importantly, their sexual partners were not regarded as homosexual at all. This, essentially, is identical to kabaklaan and the other similar ways in which male femininity and male sex with males are regarded in southeast Asia today. It is also very much in line with the popular view.
These writers include Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Karl Ulrichs, Magnus Hirschfeld, Henry Havelock Ellis and many others. Quentin Crisp later wrote of his own experience as a homosexual male, prior to 1950. They all agreed: homosexual males wanted to be women to heterosexual men, and homosexual females wanted to be men to heterosexual women.
Symonds and Friedlaender: influential contrarians
This is not the only form of male-male love, however. There is another, which does not depend on one party adopting a female sexual role, or, more particularly, feminine social ones. This, prior to the twentieth century, was rare. Almost all the prior accounts we have of homosexual behaviours and relationships are essentially transgender: one party always took the female sexual role. This was equally so in pederastic relations, where the younger or lower-status male always took the submissive of female role, although here, a ‘flip’ was implied as the sub aged and took his own subs, usually around the age of twenty five, though in some societies, younger.
However, that began to change in the second half of the nineteenth century.
John Addington Symonds–first forefather of The New Gay Man
The English Classicist John Addington Symonds (1840-1893) was a supporter of pederasty, although he was himself married, with children. This is in fact typical of pederasts. He was the first modern writer to propose an opposition to the Theory of Sexual Inversion and to publicly attack transgender homosexuality.
Symonds…advocates on behalf of a latent homosexual ethics, shunned from modern Western society, but continuing to hold forth a promise for the civic and moral renewal of Western countries. Against the positions of Krafft-Ebing and others, (he) argues for the acceptance of “manly love,” in (what he viewed as) the spirit of the ancients, as a source of moral inspiration for a declining Europe… Symonds is often read by historians of homosexual radicalism as a precursor to the radical tradition of the 20th century.
Critical here is that line ‘manly love in the spirit of the ancients’. What is being alluded to is an asexual form of spiritual love. Some referred to this as ‘homophilia’ rather than ‘homosexuality’. But this, in the context of modern male-male relationships, is an oxymoron, because they are all about penetration.
Benedict Friedlander; the New Gay Man’s spiritual leader
Benedict Friedlander (1866-1908), a former disciple of Hirschfeld who later turned against him, was more instrumental in the development of the modern New Gay Man cult and today Symonds, although pre-dating him, tends to be forgotten.
Friedlander also refuted transgender homosexuality and Sexual Inversion. He proposed a form of narcissistic, hyper-masculine homosexuality instead. Amongst other things, Friedlaender called, in his book ‘Die Renaissance der Eros Uranios‘ for a revival of pederasty, as had Symonds. Despite the fact that both men had a history of pederastic behaviour, they defined their ideal male-male love in intellectual and romantic, rather than physical terms. This also put them at odds with the other writers of the era.
Both men were wealthy and Friedlaender was fashionably anti-establishment, like so many gay activists today. He contributed both to socialist and anarchist publications. Despite calling for a rehabilitation of ‘Greek Love’ — pederasty — both despised one core element of conventional pederasty, that it was hierarchical. There was always a status imbalance between the partners, which reflected the sexually dominant/submissive relationship of men to women.
This form is globally found and is often associated with didactics or even formal education, through schools or religious institutions. Other hierarchies were of class, nationality or race. Hordes of English, French and German pederasts broke male bottoms across Europe and furth and thought nothing of it, because their owners had differently-coloured skin, spoke a foreign language or were simply poverty-stricken. Meanwhile, at home, lords and wealthy gentlemen buggered ‘lower-class’ catamites senseless. Indeed it became a lucrative, if illicit, industry.
Pure male love
Symonds and Friedlaender were offended by this, arguing that ‘pure’ male homosexuality should not be hierarchical, but egalitarian and that it should be uniquely masculine, with neither partner accepting a female or feminine role. This latter caused a problem, because in any penetrative relationship there is always a hierarchy.
Symonds in particular was concerned about what he saw as the corruption of youth in the pederastic system then current in English public schools and colleges. He insisted that homosexuality must be ‘age-equal’ as well as status-egalitarian. This probably stemmed from having been pedicated himself, as an adolescent. It would have made him realise the emasculative power of anal penetration.
It performs a magick that he, as a misogynist, could not tolerate, for it transforms a boy, whom he saw as the eventual inheritor of the chalice of masculinity, whose intellect held in check his more base instincts, into a woman, she whose only purpose was procreation of the species and who was at the mercy of her passions and the physical nature of her body. At the same time, for him, the act of penetration was to forfeit the pure masculine will to the depravities of the emotions and lust which, paradoxical though it may seem, he viewed as female.
Friedlaender was also a misogynist. He too saw women and all things feminine as being beneath men, just as Plato, his philosophical guide, had. For him, male-male love should not depend on interpersonal structures that originated in male-female sex, since that would be to demean it. So he proposed that instead, male lovers should vaunt and preserve their masculine superiority as equals. He was also a supremacist: he saw his form of homosexuality as ‘pure’ and the ‘highest form of love’.
Both men felt that the transgender form of homosexuality was too similar to heterosexuality. Just as traditional pederasty did, it not only turned one partner into a woman – and this time permanently – but it also lowered male love to a level no higher than beastly physical passions, the nasty business of ejaculation and anal lubrication.
This was something neither Symonds nor Friedlaender could abide. How could men proclaim their virtuosity when they engaged in such acts, full of sweat and blood and requiring the insertion of the Holy Obelisk of manhood into a hole full of faeces? Why, it was no better than putting it into one full of menstrual blood, without the paltry justification of reproductive duty. Like Onan’s, their seed would be spilled on barren ground – this time, that of another man’s body.
Thus the concept of transgender homosexuality had to be condemned, because it required one partner to penetrate the other. Of course, to fulfil this required an abstinence from physical sex that was guaranteed to cause extreme neuroses, with the result that what homosexuals said they did in public was not necessarily reflective of what they actually did in private. This is not the only deceit the New Gay Man has perpetrated.
Plato believed that ‘like likes like’ and that attraction to opposites was abnormal and corrupting. He therefore thought that a man who fell in love with a woman would be contaminated by her femininity and thus, become unsuitable as a leader of men. While he recognised the importance of procreation, he saw this as an unfortunate duty that men had to perform, for the benefit of society; he expected his heroes to ‘close their eyes and think of Greece’. ‘Pure’ – or ‘Platonic’ – love was that between masculine men only.
For Plato, Friedlaender, Symonds et alii, misogynists to a man, nothing, nothing could be more repugnant than the male who willingly becomes that most despised of creatures – a woman. This is why feminine male homosexuals are ruthlessly persecuted within the New Gay Man cult.
Binkley S. The romantic sexology of John Addington Symonds. 2000. Journal of Homosexuality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11195667#
https://archive.org/details/renaissancedese00friegoog/page/n13 In German.
Witness TE Lawrence ‘of Arabia’, who supported mistresses in England but while in Arabia, associated with catamites. He had little choice, of course, since women in Islam are unavailable to kuffars.
The infamous case of Oscar Wilde illustrates this. Wilde was not prosecuted for ‘being gay’ but for pedicating, as a commoner, the son of a Lord of the Realm, the Marquess of Queensberry. This broke the class-hierarchy rule and so he fell foul of a law prohibiting buggery, but which habitually disregarded it, as long as the class divide was respected. That is why the case was unusual; pederasty was doing well, it was just being ignored. Ultimately, after a series of testimonies by male sex workers, Wilde was convicted of the lesser charge of ‘gross indecency’ and sentenced to two years hard labour. It broke him.
This still goes on. There is no major British city without ‘rent-boys’, young, usually working-class, male sex workers who service wealthy ‘straight’ men. They are often not homosexual outside this lifestyle.
These ideas have become fundamental to modern Western attitudes about sex generally, whether homosexual or heterosexual. We wonder how many of those who espouse them today are aware they were developed by apologists for a rampantly misogynistic, supremacist male homosexuality.
Today, such sentiments would rightly be regarded as crushingly misogynistic, but they were very much the norm at the time. But it persists today: the transphobia so prominent in the New Gay Man cult is itself derived from misogyny, male contempt for the condition of being a woman.
(Even today, if the claims of trans sex workers who penetrate them are accurate, Western men generally have terrible personal hygiene and do not know how to clean themselves internally.)
It is instructive that the New Gay Man has become the ally of feminists that he has; both, today, despise femininity. And, of course, modern feminists, not to mention their ghastly creation, the female non-homosexual transitioner, want nothing more than to be men.