Originally posted 2023-02-13 19:59:03.
We’ve talked a lot about homosexuality here, and explained how it is a specific personality type. We’ve also discussed the ‘gay’ lifestyle and explained that this, like ‘trans’ is an umbrella description covering several different personality types, only one of which is actually homosexual. Within the gay lifestyle there are two principal types, pederasts and homosexuals. A third group is made up of non-transitioning autogynephiles and there are several more, but pederasts and homosexuals form a natural opposition.
Pederasts, let me make it clear, are NOT homosexuals. They have none of the qualities that mark out the homosexual. Where homosexuals are feminine, pederasts are masculine, for example.
I want to address an important question: we know that homosexuality is innate and caused by hormone delivery anomalies in utero; but is pederasty innate and if so, by what mechanism might it be enacted? If pederasty is not innate, on the other hand, how does it come about? That would make it a learned behaviour. So are there any signs that pederasty does have a potentially innate basis, at least for some men?
How did it begin?
Pederasts and homosexuals appear everywhere in the world, and throughout history.
Pederasty is well documented in the Ancient Greek era and it was supposed, by some, that it had originated on Crete. That seems at best unlikely, since, just like homosexuality, it appears all over the world. But let’s stick with Greece for a while, because if nothing else, we have a deal of literature about it.
Within Classical Greek pederasty, the parties were an adolescent boy and a young adult male, not yet married. These were always of the same social class; this was important.
Pederasty was a social custom in which an adult male would court a young Greek boy to become his model, guide, and initiator, and would become responsible for the evolution of his chosen young counterpart
First, of all, the older male, who would become the erastes, would have to ask the younger male’s father if he would consent to this arrangement. If the father agreed, the older would woo the younger by bringing gifts. These were always masculine, for example a brace of rabbits for the pot, a knife, or something similar. He never gave flowers or anything like that. The older might sing, recite poetry or show his knowledge of literature. The object was to demonstrate that he was a cultivated young man.
This was important because the principal function of Greek pederasty was education, not sex. It is certain that sex did occur; we have the images which are hard to refute. But mainly it was about training the boy to be a man.
in Greek society once a boy reached puberty, he was considered a self-sufficient citizen who was able to make rational decisions about sex, dignity, and honor.
When the younger partner, the eromenos, became too masculine, that is, when he grew a beard, he would move out of the erastes’ home and seek an eromenos of his own; meanwhile his former erastes would seek a wife and begin a family.
So note: it was not normal for sexual relationships to persist once the eromenos matured, however bonds of friendship did persist.
Effectively, pederasty provided for two young males, both experiencing significant hormone delivery, to live together under the same roof, eat at the same table and sleep in the same bed. Not unnaturally, sexual behaviour was normal. But the point was to teach the boy how to behave as an adult member of his class should.
Pederasty in this context was socially sanctioned and considered a good thing. It was a central part of the structure of society; it was how boys learned to be men. Boys would learn manly skills like hunting, wrestling, throwing the discus, sword-fighting, equestrianism and much more; and at night the two would take pleasure in each other’s bodies.
throughout history and extending into modern times, girls as young as twelve were married off to men much older than them. This is a practice that extends well beyond Greek society to just about every culture at different times. Yet we seem more able to accept that practice, of taking young brides, without the moral outrage that exists with the pederastic relationship.
In addition. the later Christian horror of anal sex, especially the hyper-prudish USican one, carried no weight with the Greeks. As the great Sir Richard Burton said ‘The Greeks would have specimened such prudishness in Attic salt.’ The skills of penetration would be taught there, preparing the younger partner for his own time as an erastes and for when he would eventually marry and make love to a woman.
A very similar form was found in Edo period Japan, where Samurai warriors would take boys and train them in the arts of war — and of love, without which no Samurai could be complete. This was called wakashudo. the way of youth. There have been many others.
These were not the only form, however. Roman pederasty was not egalitarian. Indeed it was often between men and boy slaves. That changes everything. The relationship is now not about an exchange of wisdom for physical pleasure, shared between equals, but the imposition of a man’s sexual desires on a boy — who might have been castrated to prevent his maturation. This model is also widespread.
In Greek pederasty, the wakashudo and for example, the form of pederasty found in boarding schools, neither party is a homosexual. Indeed a feminine boy would have been considered an unsuitable partner, in all. Of course, this breaks ‘gay’ activist’s minds, but it is still true. This form of pederasty is actually a form of situational homosexuality. It is mandated by the culture it is happening inside. It is not a matter of attraction, but more one of duty — which is not to say that svelte Greek boys were not attractive to the young men who loved them!
This begs another question: were there ever cases where boys were pursued and seduced by older males outside such a convenient, socially sanctioned arrangement? And if so, were they more like the Greek or the Roman model? More importantly, perhaps, given that we can say with certainty that homosexuals follow a specific model and constitute a discrete personality type, can we say the same about pederasts?
Most modern pederasty in the West today is not socially sanctioned, rather the opposite. It is emphatically of the Roman model. It involves older, more powerful men seducing younger males for pleasure. There is no element of pedagogy.
Pederasts do however, seem to fall into a particular profile, so we’ll look at some examples.
Wilde was unquestionably a pederast. But he was clearly not a homosexual. He was tall, 6’3″ (1m91). He was not of slender or delicate build; at 190 lbs he was of average weight for his height. His features were not neotenous at all, indeed he was masculine in appearance. He did often wear his hair in a foppish style, considered ‘Bohemian’ in the day, probably because, as a playwright, this was somewhat expected. He tended towards a certain dandiness in dress, but he never crossdressed.
One swallow does not a summer make, however, so can we find any more? Yes indeed.
Frankie Howerd 1917 –1992 was an English comedian and actor. He stood just over six feet and was robustly built. His face was not neotenous or feminine at all, rather masculine. This is shown into sharp relief when one sees pictures of Howerd with his longterm lover, Dennis Haymer (b.1928), a classic homosexual, small, dainty, elegant and pretty. Haymer was incredibly loyal to Howerd, even supporting him when his theatrical career was on the rocks. Whether this was reciprocated is moot.
Stephen Fry (b. 1957) is an English actor, writer and impresario. He regards himself as ‘gay’ but shows few signs of homosexuality. He is 6’5″, (196cm) and 220lbs. Again, he is by no means slightly built. His face shows no sign of femininity. In 2015 he legally married Elliott Spencer (1987), who is thirty years his junior, and who, wait for it, is small, light, neotenous and so on, exactly fitting the homosexual profile.
Rock Hudson (1925-1985) was tall, 6’5″ or 1.96m, of powerful build, being 215lb before his terminal illness. Hudson was a conventionally handsome masculine man, with no sign of homosexuality. Hudson, as one of the biggest film stars of his era, was careful to keep his sex life private, but his former lover, Lee Garlington, while keeping the secret during the star’s life, did speak out after his death. In his words, the nature of the pederastic relationship is explored:
“I remember we were getting ready to go somewhere and he said, ‘Let me show you how to shave properly.’ He showed me how to take the razor and go down your face at an angle so it cuts better.”
They couple parted in 1965, of which Garlington said
“One of the reasons we went our own way was because in a way I wanted a father figure and he was not strong enough. Rock wasn’t a real strong personality. He was a gentle giant.”
Again this is redolent of the Greek pederastic relationship, where the eromenous, which Garlington clearly was, seeks a father-substitute, a strong man, a leader and guide.
Before moving on, let’s consider the most celebrated case of an obviously pederastic relationship in ancient Rome; it was between the Emperor Hadrian and his love-boy Antinous. Again, Hadrian was certainly not a homosexual, though Antinous might have been. The youth is always portrayed in a somewhat masculine manner, but often with floppy-moppy hair. However Hadrian is portrayed as a masculine god and his life — he was decisive and powerful Emperor, one of the five ‘good Emperors’ — reflected that. This was no homosexual, but a strong, masculine man. He was described in the Historia Augusta as a ‘tall and strongly built man’.
Pederasts and homosexuals can be distinguished
The above suggests that pederasts and homosexuals can be distinguished on a number of parameters; in fact it would be hard to mix them up. So there is justification for suggesting that they might be a discrete personality type, just as homosexuals are. Certain things are obviously common to these men: they are definitely not small, dainty or petite; they are often handsome, with bold features, but they are not neotenous in any way; they are often athletic or otherwise active men; they are naturally dominant. Most importantly, in sex they always take the ‘inserter’ role. They never play the submissive sexual partner.
What about their ideas and personalities though? Homosexuals are normally passive, gentle, artistic and so on; are there traits that mark out the pederast in the same way?
One man — a tortured individual who died by his own hand — Benedict Friedlaender (1866 –1908) — was probably the most influential thinker in the formation of the modern ‘gay’ movement. He is often either not recognised or suppressed because of the association of his ideology with Nazism and particularly, the Hitler Youth. Friedlaender had been involved with Magnus Hirschfeld’s group until 1903 when he, Adolf Brand (1874 –1945) and others, split to forn the GDE — the ‘Community of Exceptionals’. All of the members were male supremacists and so presaged Nazi ideology, though they were not Antisemitic — Friedlaender and Brand were both Jews, along with others.
The GDE believed that:
‘male-male love, in particular that of an older man for a youth, was…a simple aspect of virile manliness available to all men; they rejected the medical theories of doctors such as Magnus Hirschfeld…The GdE was a sort of scouting movement that echoed the warrior creed of Sparta and the ideals of pederasty in Ancient Greece; (it) was heavily involved with camping and trekking and occasionally practiced nudism – the latter then common as part of the Nacktkultur (‘culture of nudity’) sweeping Germany. ‘
The GdE was a parallel to the Wandervogel, another trekking organisation in which boys were made available sexually to men; this became the Hitler Youth.
‘The GdE repudiated Hirschfeld’s understanding of homosexuality in a transgender spectrum and instead emphasized the masculinity of male-male sexuality, as did André Gide in 1924 in his Corydon. Some members of the GdE advocated the classical Greek practice of having a relationship with a younger man while being married.’
Essentially, the whole thrust of Friedlaender’s thinking and that of the GdE, as well as other organisations, was that penetrating other males, particularly younger ones, was a sign of virility. There was nothing effeminate about it: at least they said there wasn’t. Buggering other males made them more manly, rather than less — especially if the buggerees were sweet pretty boys with smooth skin and haunting eyes.
This sheds light on the modern Western masculinist ‘gay’ culture, which does not portray ‘gays’ as feminine at all, but rather as hyper-masculine. This is the culture that I call the New Gay Man, but in fact, his roots go deep — probably as deep as feminine male homosexuality. In this culture, all forms of femininity are rejected, in favour of a stifling masculinism which reeks; of liniment, gym-sweat and most of all, buggery. These men are not sexually receptive when they become adult.
On the other hand, homosexuals are sexually submissive from childhood. They never grow up to be ‘tops’ because it is contrary to their natures. This is why they are virtually excommunicated from New Gay Man culture. The New Gay Man is completely misogynistic (even if he denies it) and there is no femininity he hates more than his own. So he spends years ‘learning to be masculine’, to cut out those little hand-gestures, that swing of the hips and those submissive gestures; he spends fortunes on gym fees and cosmetic surgeries, all to ‘man him up’.
The normal aetiology of a pederast is to be seduced as a boy when he is young and not fully formed, with a youthful, but still masculine body. They are boyish, not girlish. They will serve as sexual playthings for older men, who often call them ‘twinks’ and speak of their physical charms in terms that would shock a superannuated harlot; but when they begin to masculinise, they will have to move on to the next phase of their career, to ‘turn top’ and begin seducing and pedicating younger boys.
Arab culture explains how this works. Professor Ali al-Wardi wrote, in his 1965 work A Study into the Nature of Iraqi Society
‘It was very common in many tea houses to see grown men in company of adolescent boys who rarely left their side. It was common for figures of influence to spend lavishly on such boys, to buy them expensive clothes and gratify their every need and even involve them in their work. Such behaviour wasn’t looked down upon, and was sometimes even taken pride in. Even to this day, remnants of this behaviour linger.’
‘A human being is instinctively drawn towards contact and enjoyment of the opposite sex. Therefore if for whatever reason (Ed: in this case the strict segregation of women under Islamic rules) it happens that members of the opposite sex (were) separated from him, he will start trying to substitute for that contact by relations with the same gender. This is what causes some men, in societies where gender segregation is prevalent, to copulate with adolescent boys, due to their resemblance to women, until appearance of a beard, at which point they would be left alone.’
All that Al -Wardi omits to mention is that once they had been ‘left alone’ by older men, these boys, now bearded adult men, would find a boy of their own to pedicate. These Arab men were certainly not expressing femininity in their lust for pretty boys; they were instead expressing an almost overwhelming masculinity. This may have died out in Iraq, as Al-Wardi coyly suggests but frankly I doubt it. Pederasty is still very common in Afghanistan, Pakistan, where it is practically universal, and most other Muslim territories. Al-Wardi provides the reason why: the strict segregation of the sexes leads men to seek sex with boys. There is no point in denying it.
This, however, is a form of situational pederasty; it occurs because there are no women available. Is there an innate form? Are some men specifically attracted to boys for their particular beauty, rather than merely as a substitute for women? What might it mean, if it were so?
Is it possible that all men can be as attracted to boys as they are to women? Could this be not a function of circumstance at all; rather the circumstance is a cover. For example, the Ottoman rulers had vast harems of the most beautiful girls from all over the Empire — but they still imported Circassian and other boys as sexual sweetmeats — and they were hardly the only ones.
This is a question that needs a lot more research. Certainly it does appear that there is a group of pederastic men who are rather easy to identify. But is this just happenstance, that they are obvious, and just as obviously, not homosexuals? Pederasty is cyclical yes, but the evidence from boarding schools as well as other models suggests that most people who go through the system come out the other end as heterosexual adults.
Is it possible that some men are naturally pederastic? That, just as there is a small cohort of boys who go through these systems and remain homosexual — because they always were — there is another in which they come out as pederasts — because they too, always were? Certainly, if one cares to look, it is easy to find tales of men who, as boys themselves, sought sex with younger boys, whom they would penetrate, with enthusiasm. At the moment there is not enough evidence to be sure.