Originally posted 2022-09-12 12:33:30.
What does the word ‘homosexual’ actually mean?
Over the last five years I have read deeply into the historical and modern context of the word ‘homosexual’ and how its usage evolved, from it being coined in the nineteenth century.
The word ‘homosexual’ as it is now understood in the West, was not so understood, anywhere, until the 20th century. It did not become general even there until after Kinsey published in the early 1950s, and was not dominant till much later. Whether you consider that sex between two males must be ‘homosexual’ or not, and I do not, that does not mean that either or both parties are themselves ‘homosexual’. One is an activity, the other is a personality type, formerly known as a ‘catamite’. Conflating these has been most unhelpful.
The word ‘homosexual’ is ll-defined
‘Homosexuality’ – which is as ill-defined as the word ‘homosexual’ – is similar. What does it mean? Is it the same as the ‘kabaklaan’ in the Philippines? Is it a lifestyle indulged in by homosexuals, that is, unmasculine males who desire men? This is not a trade or a profession: if we call a man who dresses meat a ‘butcher’, does that give us any inkling as to his personality, or his behaviour outside his shop? ? What about doctor or lawyer? Architect? Photographer? Golfer? Painter? These are all activities, but naming the activity does not describe the person who practises them in any way.
Why should the word ‘homosexual’ be different?
So why the word ‘homosexual’ different? Why is it given the special status that it describes a person in terms of his actions, in such a way as to categorise him and indeed, to control his activities. Using the word ‘homosexual’ to describe a male indicates, in the West today, that he only has sex with other males. But this is patently ludicrous. Plenty of doctors are also painters, butchers golfers and architects photographers.
Activities do not define people: personality types do. And the word ‘homosexual’ should uniquely be used to describe a personality type, the unmasculine male who seeks to be penetrated by masculine males. That is all it means, too.
At the same time, there are plenty of men who do have sex with other males and then go home to their wives and families. Are they ‘homosexual’? Or maybe you like the word ‘bisexual’ which has even less provenance. But men penetrate: that is what defines them.
If there is any link between activity and personality type, it is there: men penetrate, women are penetrated. It follows that a male who desires to be penetrated is not a man, but a male who penetrates, even if he is penetrating a homosexual, is a man. Similarly, there is no difference between a man who penetrates a woman and one who penetrates a catamite. He is, in both cases, indulging in quintessentially male behaviour: being a man, in other words.
The absurdity of this notion is seen nowhere better than in the claim that men who have sexual relations with transsexuals — who are, without exception, homosexual males — are ‘homosexual’. Note that I am not talking here about the typical Western Autogynephilic transvestite, a delusional man in love with himself as a woman. I am talking about real transsexuals, like the girl below. Now how could any red-blooded man refuse to have sex with her? And how on earth could be be called by the word ‘homosexual’ because of it? Clearly that’s nonsensical. She’s a beautiful girl.
The modern ‘gay’ movement has tried its utmost to pretend that the activity defines the person, which is nonsense. Nearly all the real pirates of the Caribbean were having sex with juvenile crew members, cabin-boys and powder-monkeys and this was not restricted to pirates; sailors of all types are famous for their love of ‘Le Vice’. These men were anything but ‘homosexual’. They just wanted a compliant sexual partner.
The same occurs in ‘prison sex’; even the ‘punks’ normally revert to pursuing women, after they are released. Their partners, the dominant males, are certainly not ‘homosexual’ in any meaningful sense. All men penetrate and when there’s nothing else available and it’s buggerlugs there or a water-melon, well then. In most cases, as soon as women become available, both will revert. And need we at this point mention the mujahedin?
The deliberate conflation of an activity and a personality type, which has been the centre of the New Gay Man project for fifty years, has confused everyone and for this, Kinsey must take his share of the blame.
How I use the word ‘homosexual’
Let’s be clear: when I use the word ‘homosexual’ in my work I am referring to the personality type, as the word was first intended. It replaced others like ‘urning’ and ‘uranian’, indeed catamite itself, but all mean exactly the same thing: an unmasculine male who seeks to be penetrated by other males. And obviously, the natural end-point for such a male is to live as a woman, since that conforms to his (her) sexuality.
All real transsexuals, like the girls on this page are homosexual, but their partners never are. Get this straight. These girls would never have anything to do with a homosexual male, because they would see such a pairing as lesbian — which they are not.
By the same token, a ‘lesbian’ is an unfeminine woman who seeks sexual and romantic relationships, in which she will be dominant, with feminine women.
It’s about time we all used these definitions and stopped singing to the New Gay Man tune-book.