Originally posted 2023-06-05 19:43:16.
An essential part of the closed sex market is that women must be the only permissible sexual providers. But the fact is that men are not so fussy. In the dark, well, then — one cul is much like another, n’est-ce pas?
This is one of the most interesting questions. Most males, as teenagers, would have no issues with having sexual experiences with another boy; indeed, across the planet, such behaviours are normal. As Dr JM Bailey said, it seems that men are conditioned later to reject them. That doesn’t mean that they would prefer it, but simply that, left to themselves, they would not be shamed by their teenage jerking sessions with other boys.
Within known hotspots such as the Western Boarding School system, where both informal sex between boys and a more formalised system of pederasty were widely reported, men who had been through the system were quite clear: ‘If there had been girls to chase, we’d have chased them, but there weren’t, so we had fun together.’
This seems to have been exacerbated by the fact that these institutions had no heating in the dorms, so boys would double up for comfort. Two in a single bed means the spoons position is likely to be adopted and then it’s just a matter of pulling down the pyjamas enough. It’s completely innocuous and in reading many accounts, no shame is apparent. It was just what one did. Many who later became mainstays of the Establishment spent their juvenile years in innocent buggery.
So who made them ashamed?
Women had to make make male sex with other males taboo. After all, it would never do if a man refused his legitimate wife’s demands because he’s getting his knob polished by the batang bakla from next door, you know. Women have to maintain power over men somehow. And shaming them for the way they have sex, well, that’s an easy one. It’s the go-to weapon and always has been. The closed sex market must be protected.
Despite this, across the planet, especially where real girls are strictly verboten, men pursue sex with pubescent boys, because they look like girls and can be fucked. Even today in Afghanistan and the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, mothers frequently disguise their better-looking sons as girls. This is not done to attract men but to make the local warlords pass them over; they are always on the lookout for a new boy, since girls are not allowed. They often kidnap good-looking ones for sex.
In 1994, the Taliban, then a small army of idealistic students of the Koran, were called to rescue a boy over whom two commanders (warlords) had fought. They freed the boy and the people responded with gratitude and support.
”At that time boys couldn’t come to the market because the commanders would come and take away any that they liked,” said Amin Ullah, a money changer (in Kandahar, Afghanistan).
Going back a little further – though boy-buggering is endemic in Islam – we may hold up the shining example of the Ottoman Empire, which imported hundreds of thousands, probably millions of boys from the outlying areas, especially Circassia and Europe; the latter boys were held to be particularly willing and responsive in bed. They were trained for years in the arts of sex, coiffed and groomed to look like the most beautiful girls. Indeed after the failure of the Siege of Vienna in 1683, at least 8,000 boys, kidnapped from the surrounding areas to serve as concubines to the Muslim armies, were slaughtered.
Pederasty is strictly a homosexual and homogender sex system. Adult men seek out juvenile boys. Whether this be their original taste or whether they acquired it, perhaps by going through the system themselves, adult pederasts are specifically attracted to juvenile males, not females.
In the West, the bluestocking feminists have raised the volume of their shrieking about such arrangements such that one can hardly hear oneself think (although, one notes with curiosity, they never mention the Muslim taste for pederasty.) But why? These Gorgons don’t care about boys! They’d eradicate boys, or turn them ‘gay’ – but note: the gynaecocracy insists it’s all right for them to be ‘gay men’ but never a girl.
Why protest about someone doing the job for them? Boys, after all, turn into men, and that is unacceptable to a Gorgon. But boys, in this context, break the closed sex market that the Gorgons have been trying to establish. They take power away from women, by being able to provide consequence-free sex to men. So, to keep the sex market closed, access to them must be prevented. The same applies to prostitutes; the harridans don’t care a fiddle for the well-being of the women involved, they just want them to stop selling sex and so rupturing the closed sex market.
It is a common Western mistake to imagine that Islam is monolithic. Far from it. It shows huge variation in culture and in the interpretation and application of Koranic teaching, from the indulgent to the hellishly repressive. One of the reasons the fundamentalist Taliban are so detested by more traditional Afghan men is their suppression of boy-love, which has always been a part of Afghan culture.
Islam, on the surface, represents one of the most hermetically closed sex markets on the planet; that, of course, is why the blue-hair feminist harpies of the West so love it. Anything that they think can stop men having sex, they delight in. But in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. For centuries, Islamic culture has been known as a fount of voluptuousness, of the pleasure of the flesh and, notwithstanding some ill-understood proscriptions, of a deep appreciation of the sexual allure unique to catamite boys.
Women are as good as untouchable in Islam; yet, across the entire Islamosphere, boys are on sale to men, every night. Go to any bus station…Istanbul, Teheran, Isfahan, Herat, Kabul, Peshawar, Islamabad, any city and what will you find? Go, now, to Taksim, the great market-square in Istanbul and I guarantee you will see boys, dozens of them, selling their bodies.Some will be beautiful, others plain; but all will be delighting in sex with men, advertising their talents like hucksters.
‘Oh,’ says one bus driver in Peshawar, in a conspiratorial whisper, as he smokes a fake American cigarette and eyes a lad standing about ten yards away, his hand on slender hip, ‘he’s the kind of boy who’d have sex with anyone,’ just as a Westerner might describe a local, female bike. The closed sex market is anything but and the reason is this: men don’t need women to have sex. They can manage the business of penetration very nicely, without one. And Islamic culture accommodates this.
Why? Because unlike other cultures accused of it, the Islamosphere really is patriarchal. It provides a paradise on earth for men. Adult men, that is. There is almost nothing sexual a man can do that is haram, other than allowing himself to be penetrated — and note, here I do mean ‘man’, not ‘male’. This injunction only applies to men old enough to grow beards and a charge of homosexual behaviour requires four men (or eight women) to have witnessed the act.
Before their beards grow, males are boys, who are legitimate sexual targets and even drew the attention of the Prophet himself, who considered their eyes more seductive than those of houris. Nobody attaches any blame to a healthy young lad who blithely offers his bum to an older man, for they know that in his turn, and by then suitably trained, he will take his place as a pederast himself; and the world will keep turning. In’shallah.
There is no injunction in Islam against penetrating trans women either. The term for a transwoman in northern India and Pakistan is ‘hijra’ — which is an Arabic word. Elsewhere they are mukhannathun or kanith. No Moghul ruler, ever, tried to suppress them; that was all down to the English, who sexually preferred boys themselves but liked to keep that a secret. As rampant homosexual pederasts, they were repulsed by transwomen’s femininity; they just wanted that boy-meat. Benedict Friedlaender would have loved it, as would modern-day champions of pederasty.
A long established sex market
The predilection for boys, while it certainly seems to have suited the colonial English (although perhaps not their mem-sahibs), was not of their introduction. Pederasty and boy-prostitution have long been a feature of the Islamosphere. Some suggest it was brought by Alexander, but I doubt that; I’m sure it was already present when he arrived. Pederasty is found across the globe and while it is evident in Islamic areas, it is also found where neither Alexander nor Islam ever reached.
Sir Richard Burton (1821-1890) was the greatest of English orientalists and was also famous for his own sexual sophistication. In his Terminal Essay to One Thousand and One Nights, which he translated, he wrote of his surprise in finding, in the city of Karachi, ‘boys as young as eight, standing for hire.’
Well, Ruffian Dick, as he was known as school, may rest easy under the sod, for a change, since those boys are still there; and in many other cities too.
More recent authors write:
Boy prostitution is still common in the Muslim parts of India. And in northern Pakistan, there are many professional boys. They are slightly older in the north, but whether called “houseboys” or servants, they are, in reality, boy prostitutes.3
As a result of Islam’s rules girls and women in the Islamosphere are insulated against the attentions of randy men, but boys and transsexuals are not. Indeed, the very opposite; they represent a Bacchanalian festival of the flesh, organised for the exclusive pleasure of men.
Did nobody in the West ever think to ask why female circumcision, which involves the removal of the clitoris and the restriction of the vaginal opening, is so popular in the Islamosphere? It’s because it makes it feel more like an anus, which is tight at the entry but slacker within. This is all about male pleasure, as defined in a culture wherein bum sex is almost universally practised. If men learn to enjoy sex by fucking boys, do you think that they would not learn to love the feelings that anal penetration brings? And if so, would they not find a vagina disappointingly slack?
This is the reality. Western harpies do their utmost to suppress all free sex markets, but they are everywhere. What does it matter, to a man, whether he is penetrating a woman, a transwoman or a cute boy? What difference does it make? He’s still penetrating.
It makes no difference at all. Any soft, yielding flesh, any scented breath, any sweet, moist lips…who the hell cares? Men don’t. Woman, ladyboy, bakla — they’re all the same. But women do care, because it demolishes their monopoly on the provision of sex. That is why they do everything they can to shame men who reject their ghastly attitudes, their prescriptive sex, their constantly escalating demands, their arrogance as gatekeepers — Oh, you fuck ladyboys? You must be gay! Off with his cock! Banish him! Sisters, shun this monster!
Well, no indeed madame, we cheery fuckers are not gay in any way, though those whom we fuck might be. The Romans were right and USica is wrong (again.) What about that?
A liberated sex market
Walking Street, the pedestrianised area of Fields Avenue in Angeles City, Philippines, is a delight to visit. There are many like it, from the original in Pattaya, to others across the planet. These are areas where the closed sex market does not apply and instead, a free sex market is in place and one, this time, that includes women.
Women go there to have sex and make money; men go there to spend money and have sex. Some just like to watch, all of life really being a fair in places like this, and alcohol lubricates the system.
I remember my aunt, perhaps twenty-five years ago now, took a package holiday to Phuket in Thailand with my late uncle (poor man). She told me, on her return, her nostrils flaring with ire, ‘That whole country is based on the sale of bodies!’ She almost spat her teeth out in rage as she said ‘bodies’, which made me laugh. As a woman who had denied my uncle sex most of their married life, of course, she would recognise the threat that a free sexual market presented to her.
Yet what Walking Street and its equivalents epitomise is the true nature of human life, at least in cities. This is how Uruk was, how Babylon was; it was the glory of Rome, lest we forget, and not just a street here or there, whole cities. This same thing is what caused Johnson to say ‘When a man is tired of London, he is tired of Life.’ And what is that thing? The sexual sex market. Who cares what one’s wife’s most recent demand is, when, for the price of a decent meal, one might taste almost any pleasure of the flesh that one could think of? (And likely a few more besides.) That very same pleasure that your wife has withheld, because you forgot to mow the lawn? And, lest we forget, likely with younger, more beautiful and more sexually talented flesh at that?