Sex, Lies...and Male Bisexuality

 Smarter movements than LGBTQ+ once stressed the importance of using identity politics judiciously - not as a reason for being. Unsurprisingly, as the rise and rise of ideological identity politics captures our institutions, it's LGBTQ+ which is most vulnerable to a backlash with unpredictable consequences. One such unpredictable consequence is that self-identity as well as self-reporting muddies the waters in terms of establishing accurate percentages of bisexual men amongst groups better defined as exclusive homosexuals and men who have sex with other men. The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid is a perfect example of how pseudo-science doesn't invoke objective science to establish meaning.

Bisexuality is a conceptual knock-on afterthought to the relatively modern notion of gay male homosexuality as both identity and pathology. Prior to that, Western civilization for better or worse only acknowledged sexual acts between men within the broader rules of male sexuality, as policed by homophobic elements of essentially religious patriarchy. As for what came before, it's a case of "It all depends..."

In the relatively few regions which survey sexuality, males self-reporting as homosexuals and bisexuals remain low. Adjusting for closeted dishonesty, it's not unreasonable to conclude that a <2% homosexual cohort is much higher, with a statistically similar cohort of those claiming bisexuality to be lower for much the same reason. "Men who have sex with other men" is an accurate medical descriptor, and responsibly avoids specifying homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual identities. AIDS research puts the number at <16%.  With removal of "out" and exclusive homosexuals, it's that group of males and their sexual behaviors which demand interrogation without interference from pseudo-science and identity politics.

 If one crunches the numbers according to the genderist /queer underlying notion that "everybody's a bit bi" you'd assume bisexuals comprise the largest demographic of male sexuality. They don't, and they don't to the point that one questions the queered bisexual man as more sexless academic abstraction than anything else. An identity if you like, and one which peoples social media in suspicious numbers. (Claims that "biphobia" is constitutionally similar to homophobia can be dismissed because the former lacks a body of credible evidence while the all-to-real latter is overwhelmingly evidenced to the point of murder statistics.)

 All the number-crunching in the world however doesn't reconcile how the political and the personal usually make especially poor bedmates.  LGBTQ itself has devolved into an anti-sex movement characterized by its politics-of-chaos approaches to innate sex and sexuality. Its attitudes quickly become sexual identities taken on by the naive, with cult-like zeal. It screeches "Love is love" while promoting every aspect of sexual dysfunction guaranteed to impede healthy consensual loving. Going forward, newer LGB organizations will need to stay on their toes and insist that 'B' inclusion is conditional on deference to sexual preference as a principle, in order to avoid being consumed by identity's demands. 

 

 

The Sins of Wikipedia 

 

 

   For a go-to online encyclopedia (compiled and edited by anybody and everybody) Wikipedia's "Bisexuality" entry is a dog's dinner of gender subjectivity which fails to define bisexuality beyond  American ideas gleaned from often-wrong psychology and untrustworthy psychiatry. And worse:  Hirschfeld and Freud are heavily referenced, as is Kinsey. Remarkably short on scientific expertise or proven science, the scientific mantle nevertheless lands on the suspect shoulders of Simon LeVay and John Money, with no nods whatsoever to evolutionary biology or behavioral neuroscience.

The entry's History component initially cites an article which fails to support it's claim re Spartan adult male bisexuality. Wiki's "History of Bisexuality" link serves as a lengthy love-letter to anti-essentialism...to the anti-sexual point that one can assume bisexuality as any kind of sexuality doesn't exist and never did. The elephant in the room is never addressed: for all the waffling about orientation and attraction, nobody is able to come up with an authoritative description of a bisexual sex act between two people.

Wikipedia's many sins regarding sexuality aren't restricted to bisexuality. An assembly of some facts and many ideological opinions couched in an over-reliance on strategically vague language choices doesn't add up to authority. It does however obscure important determining sexuality considerations like sex drive and sexual preference. Serious scholars of male sexology do the hard yards by critically evaluating everything from many related disciplines, in the full knowledge that social science and social criticism are often blurred to the point of having zero value. 

 

 

Bisexualty And Shaky Taxonomies

   As the various disciplines contributing to male sexology become captive to gender ideology, the erasure of essential sexual preference in favor of less substantial conceptual notions like "orientation" and "spectrums" gives free rein to new interpretations of old ideas, bad ideas and ideas which have been superseded and dismissed. Contemporary studies are tending to revisit Kinsey's sexuality-as-continuum / bisexualty-as-commonplace tropes (Valentova, Medrado and Varella), and running with ill-disguised hypotheses geared to wrecking both homo- and heterosexuality as discrete sexualities. We've come a remarkably long way since Kinsey. With modern sciences we're able to lay out facts in their correct order to establish (homosexuality as) a simple flow-chart, from bio-genetic origins through to sex-drive objectively completing homosexual sex acts. We're still however trapped in the conceptual language of Kinsey to the point that concrete sexual preference and abstract choice are sold as the same thing.

 While it's scientifically impossible to establish true bisexuality, it's eminently possible to create much science fiction around the concept which is nevertheless entirely dependent on two discrete sexualities. We know male bisexuality exists but contemporary attempts to substantiate it as a third sexuality are falling flat. History seems to indicate that bisexuality - based on the reality that all men can have extremely gratifying sex with each other - has barometric properties which rise and fall according to that society's requirements. Kinsey appears to have realized this by usage of the term "ambisexuality" as he pulled back from a flawed hypothesis which views all male sexuality within a bisexuality spectrum.When it comes to spectrums, it's far more reasonable to understand male bisexuality as part of the male homosexuality spectrum - not the other way around.

The hubristic claims of "Robust evidence for bisexual orientation among men" (Jabbour et al (2020)) were quickly shot down, not for over-reliance on identity but for crude science. Their data relied exclusively on penile arousal methodology, attended by unreliable self-reporting. Any producer of straight porn could have told them fifty years ago that heterosexual men become aroused by a big hard cock - it's a prerequisite to stimulate a straight viewer.  Ogas and Gaddam's findings on male sexuality and porn ("A Billion Wicked Thoughts" (2011)) are invaluable to understanding the contemporary male in sexology: straight men are aroused by large penises at about the same rate as gay men and probably always have been, for many reasons.

 The C19th specification of homosexuality (and later heterosexuality) doesn't entirely establish what is so across all times and all cultures. As K. Renato Lings eloquently explains (in "Love Lost In Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible"), we're missing the big picture when we ignore the homoerotic in favor of relatively modern concepts and taxonomies which explain nothing when superimposed on history's realities.

 

 

What You See Is What You Get

 

    Where and who are the bisexual men peopling our media? The heartthrobs who do it and talk it and don't give a damn, and demand more roles for bisexuals while they do it? We need names. 

Mass media is for the most part on board with a reductive 'member of the LGBTQ community' descriptor which effectively erases innate and exclusive male homosexuality, and the male bisexual's remarkable absence in media raises questions. We're wise to question the veracity of those who 'come out' as bisexual. Where are the masculine heterosexual stars and celebrity males declaring bonded sexual relationships with men outside their publicized heterosexuality? We're wise to interrogate a publicist's more-palatable descriptor as opposed to their client's actual sexual preference. Famous historical flyers of the bisexual flag like Elton John, Freddie Mercury and David Bowie invariably morphed to homo- or heterosexuality and did so in the absence of proof of bisexuality. Clearly, bisexuality-with-elan is often spin to garner edgy artistic cred. Just as clearly it's often simple deceit of the homophobic kind. Notably, mass media is usually complicit in refusing to "out" public figures despite its fundamentally exploitative nature.

 It's said that you'll never know as much about a man as you think until you know his pornography. As social study of men, it's oh-so-informative and getting to be more so. Realistically, so many lines have become so blurred across the reality/fantasy divide that pornography, sex work and sexuality itself have been been steered by technology into uncharted territories. Pornography informs us about male sexology with raw data from internet searches providing a much bigger picture than self-reporting. It's media consumption which is desire-driven as opposed to media which is passively consumed as served.

Naughty Boys

  In the real world a bisexual man won't often identify as 'bi' but just see his sexuality as his unique masculine trait. He's not theoretical, and aggressively pursues trouser as his heterosexual counterpart pursues skirt. One fairly well-run study found that male bisexuality is associated with pronounced masculinity, with a sexual preference of up to 75% weighted in favor of homosexual activity. More rigorously executed studies in lab rats confirmed male sexual attraction to other males is increases or decreases according to testosterone levels. The contemporary human male's sexual pitch to other males often presents as frank, dispassionate statements like "All men are biologically designed to sexually satisfy each other."

 

Suspicion and hostility towards bi-men predates LGBTQ+. Gay Libbers of the seventies and eighties generally dismissed claims of male bisexuality as closeted homosexuality. The numbers of men struck down by AIDS spoke volumes about men who were, and were not, out of the closet. Not everybody all of the time has bought the idea of bisexuality as a discrete third sexuality. The genetic findings of Andrea Camperio Ciani indicate no differences between homosexual and bisexual males, and many studies as well as the Implicit Association Test applied to sexuality struggle to establish difference. The Advocate chose to run with a they/them-authored "research paper" Bisexual erasure: Perceived attraction patterns of bisexual women and men constructed around the non-hard science of participant's thoughts when shown pictures of other people.  

 

There's a case to be made that the sexuality of many or most males is constructed on a lingering "naughty boy" component associated with youthful confidence, a desire to experiment and poor risk assessment skills. Youthful sexual experimentation among the cohort not identifying as gay however isn't an accurate indicator of bisexuality or homosexuality.  Nor is it conversely the same thing as young homosexuals' forays into heterosexuality which may very well be due to social pressures associated with homophobia. 

Pornographers are notoriously secretive about what sells and don't track the ages of buyers. The same doesn't apply to OnlyFans: it's said that when the site instituted age verification they lost 30,000 male content providers overnight. One can't however extrapolate actual sexuality from online behaviors which run the gamut from exhibitionism to 'cam boys' charging mostly male subscribers for what might be regarded as sex work lite.

 

 Many naughty boys' evolving sexual maturity brings about significantly different young males who aren't experimenting. Especially good-looking young males are quick to notice homosexual interest, enjoy that they're being appreciated and many work out that homophobia isn't a step up the ladder but exploiting their homoerotic appeal most certainly can be. It's cynical to dismiss this form of homosexual bisexuality as strictly transactional: before youth fades affectionate and enjoyable sex often contribute to a mutually enjoyable relationship. A more familiar stereotype however is the young-bisexual-as-villain: a homophobic society is still regularly served up both truthful and fictional tales of his calculating menace.

Situational / Incidental 'Bisexuality' In Heterosexual Men

 

    An uncertain number of heterosexual males will participate in homosexual activities for a variety of reasons. They can be rightly called heterosexual because heterosexual preference remains a constant, with many or most reverting to exclusive heterosexuality as conditions change or a stable heterosexual lifestyle is available. Many or most count this homosexual activity as proof of bisexuality but that's highly debatable since undefined periods of bisexuality are just that, and situation-dependent.

 

 Bisexuality, or situational homosexuality, is endemic to segregated male populations, with army service and incarceration being the best-known (but rarely acknowledged) situations. Males for the most part don't like being denied sex when they're young and increasingly don't tolerate loneliness as their sexuality matures. Confident heterosexual males often snicker about selling their bodies, and feigned horror at the thought balances the fact that they quite like the idea. It's an idea which serves the male ego. Straight men who actually do it very quickly find that there's little or no money to be made servicing females: if it's their only source of income they won't be eating unless eighty or ninety percent of their clients are other males.

 

And then there's show business. A male who's 100% determined to see his name in lights in industries with around 97% unemployment tends to start early with giving his all for his art: where there's a gay photographer there's an opportunity to show just just how seductively cooperative he is. With stardom and some marriages the scuttlebutt regarding his willingness to "go under the desk" is suppressed to the degree of his clout. Celebrity males have not attached themselves to the #MeToo movement as victims, and probably wisely so.

 

 "Gay for pay" isn't anything new or a feature of sexual liberation. It arcs over times and cultures. Prior to Islamist crackdowns in the 1970s, North African family men did well from gay European emigres and tourists, and always hoped for an ongoing business relationship. The most recent gay for pay shocks concern gay porn made in the Czech Republic: around 90% of the performers are straight and remarkably enthusiastic young college men, with gays deemed too temperamental for the business. The shame of being cash-poor it seems far outweighs the shame of violating heterosexuality's prescripts. The reality of economic downturns in many regions, in tandem with the decimation of porn industries by free online content, determines that more males are competing for fewer opportunities to cash in on their virility.

It's Not Gay If You Don't Kiss

 

   A fundamental question remains: can the concept of bisexuality legitimately claim the many heterosexual males who partake in situational homosexuality? The answer's moot at best. What's not moot is that males will always purpose their sexual selves to meet their wants and needs, as they negotiate their way up or around male hierarchies. Contemporary homophobia is only of the times: while it's intended to serve preservation of male power structures, earlier Classical power structures  built on the significantly homoerotic served the same purpose. One could argue that the primitive male brain is hard-wired with a homoerotic component. All males of all sexualities find masculine males most attractive, and that makes perfect sense in terms of survival threats. The Theban Band and Spartan military models insistence on bonded boyfriend couples successfully exploited the supposition.

 

No two things are ever quite the same, and a FFM 3-way is far from the same thing as a MMF 3-way. Two women plus one male constitute a bisexual experience for only the women with heterosexual male gratification being of paramount importance. Compulsory performative bisexuality for the gratification of the other sex however is not a two-way street: contemporary straight women have difficulty organizing a 3-way with two men on female terms which prefer male-on-male affection, as well as full participation to penetrating each other. While it's relatively normal for straight men to enjoy something up their backside to heighten heterosexual enjoyment, that something apparently isn't another man if it's not on male terms. 

 And then there's the not-entirely-unrelated "bromance". This new, bright and shiny "We're not gay!" descriptor for a kind of intense male relationship within heterosexuality revisits what we've been seeing since the specification of homosexuality. Not-dirty bromance is a perfect candidate for seizure by the many queer theorists masking a Puritanism which de-sexes essential objective sexuality. 

Bisexual or Closet Queen? And Does It Matter? 

  Well...yes and no. The bisexual man presents a significant challenge (or threat) to gay men who aren't as secure and authentic as we'd like to have folks believe. Most often that insecurity manifests itself in the belief that bisexual men are just casual sexual opportunists...paradoxically not unlike many gay men. Or perhaps: "Our little hearts might get broken if we can't railroad the guy into a relationship of dubious intent." In that scenario, neurosis has closed the door to the idea that a bisexual man may very well be open to a healthy, loving sexual relationship with another man. And how we ascertain that is best done with open and honest dialog which leaves both men feeling better about it all: our nominated identities may very well be cold and superficial and highly unlikely to sustain anything meaningful. 

There are always red flags to look for when it comes to intimate relationships between men. The Pew Research Center found very few men claiming bisexuality were out, with very few valid reasons for their secret-keeping. If we're being subtly told we need to respect another man's choices by diminishing our fought-for status as an out homo then a power imbalance is being demanded. Discretion and being regarded as an unimportant piece on the side are two very different things. The sexual maverick one might need to be with shows his colors early on: he's physically available and he's emotionally available.

 

 

Inconclusive Conclusions

  

   The preceding attempts to collect the many sometimes conflicting aspects of the subject as a whole of apparent conflicts. We see how homophobes and Queer theorists cherry-pick facts and data to invent Truth. Serious scholars of male bisexuality will encounter the same problems as with homosexuality: our contemporary ways of thinking about both don't fit when superimposed over history. But starting at the point of recorded history and referencing expert translators like Renato Lings we can better access how ancients thought about and conducted intimate male relationships, and recorded them in the documents of civilization. 

 

What we currently define in terms of specific sexual acts crudely fails to consistently address the only spectrum warranting examination in the truest meaning of the word: the psycho-sexuality of the individual man as he functions in the time of his culture and society. I've found Lings' overarching term "homoerotic" a most reasonable descriptor for Biblical male relationships underpinned by psycho-sexuality but often purged of their erotic content by revisionists in favor of being deemed deep but chaste "love". "Homoerotic" fits our times, and seemingly always has.

 

• Neither the bisexual nor homosexual male (as we now specify and pathologize) is evident in pre-Roman history. But ancient mythology, Hebrew Biblical and other historical evidence identifies a sometimes-ideal innately homoerotic male who characteristically bonds intensely with another male to teach overarching morality lessons. The archetype dates from the complex Epic of Gilgamesh and changes little across millennia. It's not unreasonable to suggest the homoerotic component is hard-wired into the primitive male brain, to be invoked possibly when he's threatened. The military supremacy of the essentially homosexual warriors of Sparta and the Band of Thebes certainly are due to a sophisticated understanding of how to fully exploit the homoerotic as a means of achieving much more than survival.
  

• Bio-genetic studies indicate that distribution patterns of verified male bisexuality follow homosexual – not heterosexual - patterns. It's therefore fundamentally flawed to view male bisexuality as a distinctly discrete third sexuality or worse: to view it as predominantly heterosexual.
  

• There is no hard evidence that male bisexuality is increasing, nor is there any acknowledgment from presumably heterosexual men in the public eye that they do actually take male lovers. There is significant evidence however that Queer theorists & gender zealots are singularly determined that their vague ephemeral concepts around “attraction” be substituted for essential sexual attraction as determined by sex drive.

• While there's no evidence that many men are bisexual as we know true bisexuality to be (or not to be), it's clear that many men will participate in, or initiate, homosexual sex for reasons of personal advancement and benefit, with sexual gratification as a bonus.

• More accurate than self-reporting, modern studies of the male bisexual indicate that he presents as more masculine than average, and distinctly prefers masculine male sex partners. For the sexologist working empirically, serious questions arise as to the usefulness and function of the feminized male in relation to arousing male homoerotic response. 

 

   Serious scholars of male sexology are wise to know that we don't know a lot if we don't know that our Western thinking is post-Roman, and very much indebted to the relatively narrow sexual mores of that specific era biased to matters of domination and submission within class structures. We're further hampered because the field isn't being interrogated thoroughly across all disciplines, with opinion, pseudo-science and suspect psychology dominating most discourse. I'd hope that's not the harbinger of newer inverted religious thinking replacing disciplined critical thinking which seeks to apprehend truth.

  

Qatar 2022: The Beginning Of The End For LGBTQ?

 

Al-Sharq, Qatar, May 21, 2022

 

 

 “We welcome everybody, but we also expect and want people to respect our culture”.
~ Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, 2022

 

   The millions who ceased to be 'Je suis Charlie' within about seventy-two hours are the millions who know exactly what the penalty for not 'respecting our culture' is, and Salman Rushdie certainly could have clued them up if they didn't. They'd also be the millions who pay lip service to the struggle of Iranian women, while refusing to do what they ask: show solidarity by shunning the hijab. Such realities of course apparently play no part in determining how the international governing body of football (soccer) FIFA sets its moral compass: in 2010 the scandal-ridden organization inexplicably awarded 2022 World Cup hosting rights to Qatar. Its appalling human rights record - including but not restricted to LGBTQ - was matched by its logistical unpreparedness. But when it comes to homophobic complicity, it's two consecutive strikes against FIFA: Russia was awarded the 2018 World Cup. The million who flock to Qatar however won't even be giving a damn about homophobia. But for the gays, the homos, the switch-hitters...the World Cup may very well be the time we take stock of ourselves and look realistically at what 'our community' really means in the big wide world, and what we need to do, and be, going forward.

 

Qatar's welcome mat can't even be taken on face value since Qatari media has been ramping up its anti-LGBT rhetoric all year, and menacingly doubling down its opposition to accepting anything like what a rainbow flag demands. Nice words are meaningless when very ugly laws are the law. The claims of Dr Nasser Mohamed aren't to be taken lightly.  As is entirely predictable, the furthest radical extreme of  'Western influence' is deemed to be homosexual values according to many in the Gulf states, who openly mock U.S. President Joe Biden's alliance with the LGBTIQ+ political brand. But business-as-usual is never quite what it seems in and across the Arab world, and beyond. At least one kingdom state is open to decriminalizing homosexuality, and the stop-start progress of Abraham Accords may very well soften apparently immutable stances. A window that's cracked open is a window which can open further.

 

 

LGBTIQ vs The Male Homosexual...And Female Women Too

 

 

   All of this of course is but a backdrop to the very real existential crisis facing LGBTQ itself. Anti-transgender rumblings for a few years in the United Kingdom came to a head in 2022, with 'Harry Potter' author J.K. Rowling facing furious backlash for simply making a reasonable case for innate sex and innate sexuality to not be erased by either transgenderism or its accompanying ideology. Her position is solid enough to pass the exacting scrutiny of liberationist Second Wave feminism but clashes with Third Wave feminists who insist that feminism include transwomen. [1]

 

The firestorm which Rowling lit caused both 'leftie' female women and sex-positive male gay men to review what's going on with the LGBTQ+ brand, as peddled by our organizations. In the activist lull which followed same-sex marriage achievements the broad LGBTQ  'community' clearly appeared to have morphed quickly into something else. And that 'something else' wasn't representational of progress and empowerment - it was a Special Victims Unit which had apparently regressed to little more than a plea for tolerance, recollecting Magnus Hirschfeld from a century previous and the trauma of Ed Wood's dilemma & his angora sweater. We became a thing - 'a member of the LGBTQ+ community' - with our sex and sexuality significantly diminished both within and without said community.

 

 

 

A Miss to build a dream on

 

 

   When it comes to our organizations, seasoned activists know only too well the difficulties faced in keeping the bastards honest. While they gladly take credit for the results of direct actions, they're very much closed shops and most adept at pulling the wagons around when their business models and actual missions are questioned. The gay press worldwide stay far away from anything like unbiased journalism - it's heavy hitting is restricted to defending LGBTQ orthodoxy as determined by advertisers. Self-perpetuation is fundamentally important to the collective: it's very much about jobs for the boys and jobs for the girls. And they're very often mediocre performers who are there by the grace and goodwill of lesbians and gay men. As those organizations grow their business model becomes more  focused on bringing in the bucks for 'campaigns' ahead of providing services to individuals beyond hotlines. And when rats are smelled the very best idea is to follow the money while wondering how much of it's spent identifying what's most needed by men and women who have sex with each other, and proactively setting goals and objectives which are demonstrably worthwhile. The dollars which surge into and around Pride celebrations are just as worthy of following as are the dollars attached to Qatar's World Cup which is shaping up as the anti-Pride parade of the decade. 

 

Slogans like "Words Hurt!" beg for forensic language scrutiny, and more. Putting aside the obvious alarm bell of experienced hurt meaning victory for a bully, the self-respecting homosexual probably questions the true intent and purpose of the slogan. On the one hand words do indeed hurt, and Didier Eribon [2] makes a damned good case for language-induced trauma setting the stage for the self-doubt which plagues the lives of so many gay men, and experienced as under-achievements across most aspects of his life. On the other hand, while LGBT organizations bang the mental health drum loudly to solicit funding, it's becoming apparent that the specific mental health needs of gay men aren't being addressed appropriately, if at all.

 

Slogans are best paired with visuals, and the loudest drum LGBTQ bangs is the inclusivity drum. And it's a lucrative one to bang. Taking a cue from The United Colors of Benetton marketing campaigns, the original all-inclusive rainbow flag was nevertheless deemed to be not inclusive enough. Astute People of Color rightly deem the Progress iteration to be more segregationist than anything else but hey when LGBTQ is including you for the purposes of optics you don't get a vote. Your colors might just be there to lend cred for others demanding more visibility.

 

'Others demanding more visibility' are the many Lettered Others who have no legitimate history with matters of sexual liberation, or sex and sexuality for that matter. Looking at  'T' & 'A', we see rainbowed people from 'T' (for trans-) primarily concerned with matters of weaponizing self-identification, through to 'A' for asexuals ("aces"), primarily concerned with no sex at all. While transgenderism itself is the product of bad academia in opposition to Critical Thinking, its ideological impact is cutting across our institutions. It's in concert with popular thinking which values invented truth ahead of Truth which is apprehended by disciplined scholarship and rigorous scrutiny of all which is brought to bear.

 

Pride! Progress! Oops!

 

The cunning transvestite takes his cues from Rachel Dolezal [3], whose progress via blackface was driven by academic self-identification ideology. And so it is in varying degrees for trannys, she-males, sexchanges, transexuals, troons etc who've ridden in on the horse of trangenderism, brandishing sabres of transphobic accusation. While British gay men and female women are well under way with peeling the 'T' off LGBTQ at a local community level, across the pond Joe Biden got a rude awakening mid-November when a federal court rejected the Biden administration's attempt to redefine 'sex' in federal law, ruling that "Title IX’s protections center on differences between the two biological sexes."

 

Without a doubt the LGBTQ+ brand will survive as long as it's both lucrative and serves political expediency of the virtue-signalling kind. While constituencies rush through laws promoting self-ID and transgender ideology won't be purged from academia any time soon, LGBTQ is likely to suffer a severe bruising as the only true allies of gay men - female women - flex their muscles in the many ways they can, and will.

 

The show's just getting started.   

 

Oh, The Politics Of It All...

   One needn't be a Marxist of any iteration to best examine systems and come up with analysis in times when systemic analysis is dumbed down to the point that class barely rates a mention. The OECD dislikes chatter about Advanced Capitalism and prefers to weaponize terms like 'Socialism' as long as the concept is as bastardized as it's misunderstood. Thinking homosexuals often find themselves politically homeless in terms of Left and Right especially if they've questioned exactly what LGBT is all about politically...in terms of Left and Right, at least.

But LGBTQ certainly has a political home when relevant class analysis comes calling. David North's defining of the 'pseudo-left' [4] most certainly nails the collective to a modern petty bourgeois cross.

• The pseudo-left is anti-Marxist. It rejects historical materialism, embracing instead various forms of subjective idealism and philosophical irrationalism associated with existentialism, the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism.
• The pseudo-left is anti-socialist, opposes class struggle, and denies the central role of the working class and the necessity of revolution in the progressive transformation of society. It counterposes supra-class populism to the independent political organization and mass mobilization of the working class against the capitalist system. The economic program of the pseudo-left is, in its essentials, pro-capitalist and nationalistic.
• The pseudo-left promotes “identity politics,” fixating on issues related to nationality, ethnicity, race, gender and sexuality in order to acquire greater influence in corporations, the colleges and universities, the higher-paying professions, the trade unions and in government and state institutions, to effect a more favorable distribution of wealth among the richest 10 percent of the population. The pseudo-left seeks greater access to, rather than the destruction of, social privilege.
• In the imperialist centers of North America, Western Europe and Australasia, the pseudo-left is generally pro-imperialist, and utilizes the slogans of “human rights” to legitimize, and even directly support, neo-colonialist military operations.

   Within that paradigm, the Post-AIDS political gay himself tends to be a fairly fluffy piece of work. Absolutely defined by an academia polluted by Foucault and devoid of respect for Critical Thinking skills and doggedly declining knowledge of his history, his always-relativist approach to progressing himself (and 'his own kind') hasn't yielded a lot of actual progress in three decades. From the understandings / misunderstandings of Sartre to Madonna via Foucault one could expect a few dynamic reinventions, as opposed to fizzlers of the shooting oneself in the foot kind. When it comes to shooting oneself in the foot, gay men who hide behind the skirts of trans activists in 'solidarity' may very well be committing firearms offenses of the worst kind. If social media is anything to go by, trans activists clearly have male gay men in their cross-hairs, and are maliciously doing psychological warfare on our innate sexuality.

A characteristic of the Post-AIDS political gay is to respond from a distinctly non-empowered bunker mentality to challenges, with a backlash often relying on that old pseudo-left standby: accusations of  being in bed with the 'far-Right' and invocations of Nazis under the bed. Reasonably, it doesn't take a lot of forensic work to identify who and what he - on behalf of LGBTQ+ - is in bed with politically. He's averse to taking a good hard look at all so-called allies who've infiltrated the movement: an apparently diverse mob comprised of neo-socialists, Palestine-freers, Antifa and the remnants of the Occupy movement are the tail which intends wagging the dog. The sexual liberation of the homosexual male is destined to suffer, not thrive, at the hands of new internationalism. We'll need to be the aggressive gatekeepers of our own homo- and bi-sexuality for what it is.

Pride Without Progress

 

 

    In failing to effectively combat homophobia as perceived on the critical real-world battlefields where homophobia is best defended and perpetuated (like men's sports) then most certainly the LGBT collective has lost its way, and reasonable people reasonably ask what the hell is their purpose. Does LGBTQ actually foster the perception that gay men in male sports are unwelcome victims?  Quaint and hokey P.R.-curated personal 'coming out' tales from grown men are rarely the dynamic stuff of grown men asserting their sexuality as alpha-males...the role models who are desperately needed since homophobia itself is housed in all matters to do with male sex and male sexuality. Contrasted with the footballer star-power of LGBTQ 'ally' David Beckham currently pimping Qatari tourism for a fortune, media stories of men's men of lesser status coming out with a dash of victimhood  seem a bit suspect.

    

The LGBTQ collective long ago began white-anting principles of sexual liberation in favor of what favors it: abstract identity over objective sex and objective sexuality [5]. Men who have sex with other men stand to be the biggest losers because the reality of lethal homophobia is that it impacts more on males than anybody else. Movements change in a strictly temporal context, and across its century-long history the movement generally known as Gay Liberation has waxed and waned. The stale and untrue belief that 'alphabet people' have the very best interests of homos at heart is becoming hard evidence of the need for a hard reset, of the liberationist kind. We look at a society saturated in LGBTQ orthodoxy, yet a society unable or unwilling to come up with anything more than a tepid response to FIFA or Qatar.

 

The reductive homogenization of the male homosexual as a 'member of the LGBT community' is as dangerous as it's demeaning. We blinked, and society blindsided us in the name of including us on their no-dissenters-tolerated feel-good mission which is as anti-male as it's anti-sexual. We're essentially tied by the balls to Western ideological ideas of human rights, while the West itself appears to be on the skids globally. And Qatar 2022 is the ideal wake-up call for male men to critically examine the anti-male and anti-sexual aspects of LGBTQ as a causative flaw in the movement's abject failure to advance globally.

 

 

Liberation Psychology vs Ideological Universality

    Old habits die hard. Western chauvinism towards modern Middle East and North African Islamist men is underpinned by what conceals itself nowadays: with a few tweaks, contempt for 'the Arab' determined by early 20th Century European sexual neuroses becomes a contemporary need to have him conform to prescribed sexual mores of the West (as signified by the excesses of eroticism as public spectacle). A determination to 'civilize' by way of a Pride parade (that) what's of true conservatism only demonstrates complete disrespect and lack of understanding of what male sexuality is, and how it's experienced in any given time and place. Western conservatism may indeed have betrayed itself and become something else decades ago, but it would be erroneous to assume that that the modest and private sexuality of the Arab male is up for debate or reinvention in the name of modernity in wolf's clothing.

 

 

 

From Western Sahara to Iran, fifty years of taught Islamist homophobia is certainly evident. In a relatively short time-frame it's erased much of North Africa's traditions of private male sexuality which never conformed to European homophobic imperatives.  The innate and historic homosociality of 'The Arab' is still enough to trigger discomfort in the sexually neurotic Westerner, homosexual or otherwise.

 

 

The vanity of LGBTQ+ can never escape its foundational sexual neuroses - it's after all just a series of reactionary responses to American suburban middle-class neurosis. Its pretenses to sexual liberation for the Arab male aren't quite as bravely altruistic as it would have you believe, or ever likely to meet with any success when grafted onto old European sex-driven prejudices toward said males. As LGBTQ becomes more obviously anti-male in its gender-obsessed rhetoric, it will will lose, not gain, traction with 'The Arab'. He'll see that none of it is based in personal or cultural respect and demonstrated trustworthiness. When cultural respect acknowledges the difference between life-affirming conservatism and the brutality of its modern radical extremist cousin, the imposition of other sociopolitical ideology is doomed to failure. As the 21st Century ascendancy of the Arab male is assured, Westerners may be in for the rudest of awakenings when LGBTQ in both form and ideology is dismissed as cultism at best, and Western imperialism at worst.

 

   Way back when I was a neophyte in gay media I didn't think too much about about how my activism and getting ethically responsible programing on air would work. Luckily I had a brilliant mentor who pulled me into line: "Be the apolitical journalist the profession demands. Boil it all down to asking yourself the same question you should be asking the gay community: "Do you/we have more in common than sex and oppression?" I find my self re-asking the question when I consider community failures both locally and globally. Like many men I'm angry and frustrated that LGBTQ is becoming unfit for even the purpose of responding to the challenges homophobia always re-presents. Also like many men, I'm aware that the tougher and more resilient me has a respectfully compassionate duty-of-care to my brothers. And that necessarily challenges any ideas I may have about the value of ideology as opposed to the pursuit of liberation for the sake of liberation.

 

With that in mind, I'm refreshed and not depressed that the planets are lining up as they should. My  brothers doing it tough in Qatar aren't 'Arab gays' - they're my brothers. Qatar reminds me of that. Islamism reminds me. The World Cup reminds me. Free, fit and attractive men playing football reminds me about political footballs. The World Cup will come and go and David Beckham will continue to pimp homophobic Qatar as a place to go, with no impunity. 

 

So all in all it's a good time for homos to review the situation, as they say.  It's a good time to think holistically. It's a good time to think globally. From there we might think decisively about how best to prevail in a world which doesn't even promise survival. The great ideas after all have their genesis in the imagination, and the great battles are won with purposed strategies. 

 

 

If everybody gets to 'transition' then gay males get to transition into men who set the course of history, as opposed to being dedicated followers of fashion who are told what to be, and how to be it. Perhaps a weary world is waiting to make way way for us rather than opposing us.

 

[1] J.K. Rowling's apparently new 'radical feminism' is no such thing. Germaine Greer - arguably one of the finest incisive thinkers of the Twentieth Century - faced twenty-five years of academic vilification for her well-reasoned opposition to male-to-female transgenderism. So-called radical feminists who foresaw recent reversals of women's rights have been fairly reminding gay men for years that their alliance is required - citing the extraordinary contributions of female women to the lives of gay men during the AIDS crisis.

[2] Didier Eribon: Insult and the Making of the Gay Self (1999)

 

[3] Dolezal's most recent hustle is an OnlyFans account https://nypost.com/2021/08/19/rachel-dolezal-launches-onlyfans-for-foot-pics-and-squats/

[4] From foreword to The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique (2015)

[5] A. Camperio Ciani et al https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18561014/

 

 
  

Why Josh Cavallo Matters

 

 

    "Does it matter when a young man who in a reasonable world shouldn't have to come out as gay does so anyhow?"

 

   Reasonably, that would depend entirely on the motivations underpinning whatever response follows, with murder being an outcome in many regions and territories - self-identifying as a male homosexual being especially egregious to any culture which courts homophobia to about the same degree as it seeks to reinforce extremes of male supremacy. All things are not equal within the paradigm: signalling intent to have sex with another man is quite specific, and quite specifically more dangerous.

Of course "coming out" itself in a progressive landscape has been a highly ritualized exercise in an individual's "journey" for some time now, with exactly no men of any importance - self-imagined, and otherwise - just declaring that they're looking to have sex with other men. But we've known for almost as long as the century-and-a-half of the male homosexual being specified that social forces will seek to do him damage, and usually do it quite successfully to point that the lives of few aren't severely impacted by self-doubt. Clearly, coming out has to be more than a solicitation for some kind of pity - even if it's encouraged by media which sees a victim with a sob-story as desirable reality entertainment. 

   A public coming out serves as spectacle for both the outed and the audience, and Josh Cavallo's is no exception. Interestingly, Peter FitzSimons - no doubt seeing himself as an authority on all things gay as well as all things football - took it upon his magnanimous self to announce that homophobia is virtually over.  Cavallo's landmark achievement is only "interesting" news to him. What a guy...a non-gay man so full of himself he thinks he's entitled to invent a conclusive timeline of homo male progress which doesn't call for more decisive action than ever! 

FitzSimons' niceness isn't all it seems and sadly we'll see more of it as non-gay men seek to nicely keep young gay men in their place...a nice twist on how it has been for far too long. In the microcosmic and indeed rarefied little world of some men, "acceptance" of male homosexuals will stay conditional without our assertive and decisive claims on real power while demonstrating exemplary leadership. And that's necessarily predicated on having a clear understanding of two things: one's ability (and right) to do the job, and a realistic understanding of how we can be gaslighted by false ideas like equality having been almost achieved.

Cavallo matters because he's a unique global achiever - what's been done has well and truly been done

   Soccer (futbol) may not on face value be hyper-masculinity in sports, but in terms of its global reach the code probably encompasses the milieu better than most. The collective codes broadly known as "football" have long stood as bastions of masculinity inasmuch as they perpetuate the notion that true masculinity is a standard only achieved by non-gay men, and reinforced by a type of masculinity which equates strength of character to an aversion of homosexuality.

In the wake of Gay Lib, many footballers as well as many other male athletes have come out. But they've only come out post-career, and usually to help sell their memoirs or to just get on TV. Whatever accolades they seek need to be viewed in the context of their closeted years as much as their "bravery" in coming out. Josh Cavallo is another piece of work altogether: at 22 he's showing what male leadership is all about, as opposed to being what it's not. The support he's widely receiving needs to be viewed for what it is: recognition of a man who can take charge going forward rather than a gay who's worthy of a Certificate of Participation because he showed up. Goodwill becomes that much more meaningful and substantial when barriers are being torn down because it helps ensure those barriers will stay down. Goodwill is fundamental to an environment which nurtures high self-esteem in all who participate, and allows good psychology to effectively do its thing. 

Cavallo matters greatly because he's deodorizing the stench of Israel Folau, and because of his proactive shot across the bows of competitive male sport always will matter. More's the pity that do-gooders fail to see the disparity between how loudly the voices of Folau and Cavallo have been amplified, and their part in it. Homophobia hasn't been vanquished and will go on to fight another day in the dirtiest ways it knows how but Cavallo's unique achievement as an A-Leaguer bringing his A-game goes a long way to slowing it down.

One of the good things about a life well-lived is knowing that the consequences of the choices we make are never entirely predictable. Nobody - least of all Josh Cavallo - knows how many times he'll hear "Cocksucker!" yelled from stadium stands, or how many languages he'll hear it in. The man himself has options for how he'll experience it...perhaps he'll just smile to himself and play on better than ever with winning resolve. But more likely the audience narrative will pivot silently, with many a sports-loving man (or woman) similarly resolving that "No son of mine will ever be brought up thinking he's any less of a man for chasing cock."

All in all, the rules of the game stipulate that any player can take a goal kick...you just gotta be in the game. And Josh Cavallo is truly in the game, while leading the charge for a high self-esteem environment which will benefit more men than himself, and in more locker-rooms than he'll ever set foot in.

The Obfuscations Of "Leaving Neverland"

Neverland Redux: Wade "Little One" Robson, Dan Reed, James "Rubba Rubba"" Safechuck

    Liking or disliking Michael Jackson and his music has little to do with the public spectacle that is Leaving Neverland.  In the overcrowded genre of media about Jackson's pedophilia, director Dan Reed goes for the home run with a slap in the face for those in danger of becoming inured to the subject. Jockeying for center stage is the opposing attack movement firing at Leaving Neverland and its participants. Their discreditation platform wins hands down when it comes to obfuscations since none of their "policy points" stands up to scrutiny: legalism isn't truth being told.

   Torrents of celebrity marketing across decades only ever reinforced my hope that Jackson would just go away. And then he did, sort of. What's always interesting is the business of celebrity branding, and how 'artists' wield their powers of litigation to prevail in life, and in Jackson's case, to curate a lucrative legacy in death. Trawling through the extensive documentations of litigation and more, it's notable that the names of Wade Robson and James Safechuck aren't Johnny-come-latelys by any means, and they're on board the good ship Leaving Neverland with enough unredacted testimony to elevate the sordid Jackson saga up to something else.
 
   It's taken a few weeks for a suspect media to partially recover from the shock of Leaving Neverland, and they're now predictably scrambling for The Story which best dodges two male victims mentioning the unmentionable: "We were two little boys who enjoyed sex with a man." It might not be a great credibility defense but, given some thought, it's one hell of an offense. Expert forensic psychologists aren't rushing at Leaving Neverland in droves - no doubt unsure which horses to back and which to hobble. Wade Robson and James Safechuck admit past lies, but director Dan Reed gives them close to four hours to tell their rebranded and lurid but consistent tales.

   The non-appearing "Jackson's Camp" predictably dismiss it all as "They're in it for the money", as if to pre-establish the moral high ground of the moneyed. The director is on very shaky ground in claiming that Robson and Safechuck are not...and utilizing that questionable claim as backup evidence of their credibility. Safechuck actually passed on the potentially lucrative opportunity to testify on behalf of Jackson - citing his repugnance of Jackson's character. Perhaps they just are owed money (and lots of it), under a breached implicit contract which dare not speak its name.

How Do You Clean Up A Dirty Story? 

     It's unreasonable to make judgment calls exclusively around who's lying, but it's quite reasonable to theorize that pedophilia is as much clustered manipulative lying as it is sex. As spectacle, Leaving Neverland strikes many as harrowing and disturbing and so it should. As a vehicle to fuel our tendencies to personal and collective rushes to judgment it's quite frustrating. The undeniable complexity of Robson and Safechuck's victimhood as viewed through a prism of "feel pity for us" isn't an easy sell when their past deceits get in the way, and they're not obviously appealing for sympathy anyhow. The most glaringly phenomenal aspect of their new stories is that they are applying pederast values to their part in pedophilia ("We were in love," "We enjoyed the sex", "He didn't do right by us."). It's hard to dispute the reality that pedophiles do shape their victim's sexuality to their own purposes from a very young age, while simultaneously acknowledging that maybe Robson and Safechuck are on to something in terms of approaches to remedy and healing.

   "What's the difference between pedophilia and pederasty?" you might ask. "What side of (around) fourteen are we talking about?" is the most viable answer. While arbitrary ages aren't the last word, they're all we have as a society to begin determining consent issues. And since consent should remain key, if very young men want the right to consent to sex with older men then they need to take to the streets to demand ages of consent be lowered. 

   But puberty as the onset of manhood isn't a bad place to define the point at which the worst type of pedophile might dump young male prey. While there are pedophiles who exploit post- and pubescent males, the dynamics of attraction, power and negotiation usually differ. That exploitation may be of teenage male sex fantasies and experimentation, without any relationship to defined pederasty. And from the perspective of a precociously sexually active gay boy, movie director Joel Schumacher's frank recollections of his young self are most informative, in a dispassionate way.

   "Around fourteen" seems to be the age of cutoff for Jackson, but we're left to wonder why puberty doesn't rate a mention. How exactly does being dumped and shamed for physically becoming a man impact on a boy in the long- and short-term? It's undeniable that Robson and Safechuck, with the assistance of Leaving Neverland , are sailing to ports unknown in asking us to look at victimhood, pedophilia-plus and perhaps child sex trafficking in both older and newer ways.

   Reed could have plugged the many holes in Leaving Neverland's hull with a clear understanding of what a modern pedophile is, as opposed to what a defined pederast was. As a frame of reference it goes a long way to individualizing and humanizing the stories Jackson's victims tell. Their stories are punctuated by Jackson's failures to honor the central responsibilities of a pederast in terms of setting the younger man up for life (with education, especially) and finding him more sexually attractive after pubescence. In many ways it's progressive and courageous to air Wade Robson and James Safechuck's anguish around those exact issues: selling them as the consequences of "being in love" while going hard with graphic genitalia recollections misses the mark.

Who's To Bless And Who's To Blame?

   The director responds to questions around broad and long-term coverups with "The answer has something to do of course with the dazzling glare of celebrity and our instinctive deference to talent and wealth. But it also has a lot to do with collective ignorance."  If Leaving Neverland doesn't stand as an indictment of celebrity worship then we've completely lost our way. "How could she?" is the knee-jerk reaction to Robson's ruthless stage mother. "Very easily" is the answer if we're honest enough about our real motives behind issues like 'wanting the best for our kids and ourselves'.

   "Jimmy" Safechuck claims to be "still working on it" when it comes to forgiving his own mother. For the sake of his own healing he probably needs to work a bit harder on it since she knows and admits she fucked up as a mother. It's just a log-jam situation: she's gone as far as she can go, and drawn-out penance doesn't serve anybody or anything, mother or son. Sadly, there's no mention at all of interventions in terms of his mental health. He presents as a beautiful soul in need of it.

   But back to what Leaving Neverland has been positing on Robson and Safechuck's behalf: that they're not in it for the money. With that consideration not necessarily under a cloud, their claims are certainly tied to the shocking: "We were two little boys who enjoyed gay sex and wanted to get paid." Dan Reed does a fine job of avoiding the implications by bringing in his big guns at the exact point pesky questions about sexuality might get asked: wives and kids. That's about the time that Leaving Neverland starts to take on water. And despite some very slick editing, it all lurches towards the tabloidish,  in an "it is what it is" kind of way.

   The moral of the subliminal story of course is that heterosexuality just might save the day, albeit with some mental trauma along the way. Just one pesky but reasonable question which needs asking is "Would Robson and Safechuck be more or less sympathetic and credible if they were gay or bisexual?" There's actually way, way too much wives and (especially Robson's) family in the second half of Leaving Neverland, to the point that it appears Wade Robson might be in the director's chair. With a brief nod to therapy which isn't revisited, the show immediately invokes the paranormal instead of credible professionals explaining the fine points of how pedophilia does cause sexual dysfunction but heterosexuality doesn't heal it or cure anything. Or that the questionable goal of some treating therapists (to restore men's "true" sexuality) is binary thinking and often presents all homosexuality as a dysfunctional sexuality default. Instead, in an idea torn from the pages of Weekly World News, 'breakthroughs' for dysfunctional and deluded families happen when a relative has a dream that somebody got molested.

    For a couple of weeks The Story was fan backlash and bans on radio play for Michael Jackson, in the absence of that elusive something which might pass for both balance and objectivity. The fact that people who were in no position to know anything were excluded from Leaving Neverland goes a long way towards scuttling hack media notions about the necessity for "balance". With that pretense out of the way, a lack of prior convictions for Michael Jackson  is being pressed into service as objectivity. That he was acquitted / never found guilty of pedophilia isn't objective truth. He wasn't found innocent either, thanks to liars and the expert legal help which only power can buy. Decades of clever serial sandbagging have created a "Michael Is Innocent" myth, and if a pair like Robson and Safechuck who were there force us to confront that myth then we might be on the way to apprehending some truth.

Is It All About Penis-touching vs. Bullshitting To Beat The Band? 

Toxic Masculinity: Are We In Or Out?

Are we not men?

   Gay Liberation hasn't lived up to the early-70s promises demonstrated by significant actions like forcing the American Psychiatric Association to de-pathologize homosexuality. For decades gay men have accepted limited rights within the rise and rise of Neo-liberalism and its attendant pitfalls. Homosexuality as practiced took a sharp turn from freewheeling counter-cultural liberation towards fetishizing hyper-masculinity & practically everything else. A slightly cleaner psychiatric bill of health doesn't necessarily mean that gay men automatically question the psychology of masculinity. Calling oneself a liberationist necessarily involves knowing what one needs to be liberated from.

For the homosexual to pursue and desire masculinity for the sake of masculinity means alighting upon a psychological minefield, best explored and navigated only with good psychology. As projection, we often indulge in desire for men we neither like nor respect - to much the same degree that our non-gay brothers cause exemplary shipwrecks in their pursuit of women. And since we're talking about male psychology, it's immaterial whether or not women do it, or the degree to which they might. While good psychology (and the life-skills acquired from it) are of prime importance to all, functioning as a man who wishes to experience positive outcomes from sex and intimacy with other men as well as negotiating life in general requires supportive psychology. That is, one which supports a unique, integrated self in being the best man he can be. Nothing "special" per se - just something which doesn't bulldoze the specifics.

I've complained for years that the field of studies we call Masculinities is a neglected and scattered pursuit which tends to retread time-worn tropes - especially notable when offset with related and component studies around feminism and gender. Ergo male homosexuality presents as a psychological dead-end street without some solid framing within masculinity as understood, and understood well. The likelihood of death for a man who desires other men at the hands of toxic masculinity is reflected in suicide and murder statistics, which aren't adequately or entirely explained by catch-alls like "homophobia". We can look at simple cause and effect only up to a certain point.
 
When it comes to masculinity, homosexualists certainly have skin in the game. And we owe it first to ourselves to sort out what masculinity is inherently good and healthy, and what is just plain toxic. Ruminating about men and masculinity is a pointless exercise if our discrimination isn't focused on concepts like "real men versus toxic masculinity" as opposed to silly platitudes like "There's no right or wrong way to be a man." We're probably on a winning trajectory if our daydreams about real men turn to equating sexy masculinity with characteristics like the easy-going kindness which only comes from real masculine security. Toxic masculinity is very much at home in a gendered regressive narrative about 'tops' and 'bottoms': homosexuals however don't spring out of the womb imitating narrow modern heterosexual paradigms.

The paradoxes of toxic masculinity are many, but the central paradox, i.e. that toxic masculinity seeks to both reward and punish its adherents goes a long way towards meaningful definition/s. And it's only recently been fingered as a belief system more akin to religion than good psychology. The appeal of toxic masculinity is both obvious and covert, with the dual promises of superiority and domination ahead of simple survival. Not unlike bad religion and bad psychiatry, its dark obverse is rooted in "curing" perceived threats to its ideological self by whatever means it takes.

Toxic Masculinity isn't an interchangeable term for "the patriarchy", and while the latter nurtures the former, toxic masculinity opposes any real tolerance which may emanate from within patriarchy. Its toxicity lies within its archly reactionary but changeable characteristics, as well as its punitive practices. Toxic masculinity's reach isn't restricted to heterosexist derision ("He throws like a girl!"), hurt feelings ("Just man up!") and exclusion ("Not man enough") but could present as latter-day attacks by a man in a dress...a man who has serious issues with maleness himself. 

 

So...are we in or out?

   That would seem to be entirely dependent on whether we rally around the LGBTIQ+ flag. And whether our thoughts about ourselves are shaped by Queer thinking. Both are quite opposed to the homo male who lives his maleness as a self-realized male. Both are vehemently opposed to the very idea of innate homosexuality, and invariably and often deviously suggest we're all 'a bit bi'. And both foment a climate of anti-male homophobia.

It's becoming clear that transvestites have the most to gain with the diminishment of male homosexuality. The drag queens who traditionally prowled gay bars may have been men in dresses who desired other men but they were never connecting with their own maleness or liberated male homosexuality. Only the names have changed - they now call themselves 'transwomen' and many undertake extreme surgical mutilations to deny what they loathe about themselves, while failing to be what they're not. Is that not toxic masculinity...done by 'our own kind'?

 If we struggle with the question, we can always ask women...those people who were the only people who stood by us and nurtured our asses while AIDS devastated us. The growing consensus seems to be that some or many gay men indeed are running a protection racket for 'trans' toxic masculinity which demands the erasure of women.    

  

 What's Next? Homos Acting All Entitled?

     The homosexualist may (or may not) well understand the impact of psychological warfare against him - including often hateful and violent exclusion from the boys-and-men club, as we knew it: homophobia wielded by the axe of toxic masculinity from extraneous sources. The contemporary homosexualist however is faced with lethal psyops coming from within our own "communities" and organizations. Young homo men especially are being targeted with psyops which exploit self-doubts traceable back to childhood. To psychologically gaslight a fundamental birthright to maleness as the foundation of healthy male homosexuality is to do intentional damage. It's a sure way to guarantee that damaged men will just go on to damage other men and not much more. Of late, we've become sloppy at seizing entitlements, with good mental health being a prime example which is costing us dearly. Bad psychology will always rush into a vacuum where no good psychology is permitted. 

Going forward, the homo man will earn entitlements - rather than special rights - by his contributions to society as a self-realized man who leads rather than follows. He's grounded, he gives, he dignifies manhood by being the antithesis of toxic masculinity. 

He'll look back at his history, take what is his and attract the love his loving self deserves. 

    (Expanded and revised November 2024)

|