‘LGB’ culture in the West, from its beginning in the 1950s, was strongly transgressive, after the ideals of men like Harry Hay, one of the founders. He was a card-carrying Communist Party member who finally realised that Communists hated homosexuals even more than mainstream society did; so his solution to destroying the culture he lived in was to use homosexuality as a battering-ram.
Peter Tatchell, a ‘gay rights’ activist, first noted for the deliberate exposure of other people’s private lives said, in a 1996 polemic:
‘Those who advocate gay rights alone, without any deeper commitment to the transformation of sexua1ity, are concerned only with removing homophobic discrimination. They want to reform society, not fundamentally change it. Their insistence on nothing more than equal rights for queers, and their typical view of lesbians and gay men as a distinct class of people who are destined to remain forever a sexual minority separate from the straight majority, have the effect of reinforcing the divisions between hetero and homo. It encourages the false essentialist idea that gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations characteristic of two totally different types of people. Such attitudes preserve society as it is’
The underlying intention of Western LGB could not be more clearly stated. Those struggling for ‘gay rights alone’ are to be condemned because they only ‘want to reform society, not fundamentally change it.’ To ‘preserve society as it is’ becomes an epithet. But from whence does the idea that ‘fundamental change’ is either a desirable or an achievable thing come, or that society should not be preserved as it is? How do we improve, fundamentally, a free, democratic society in which the rights of the individual are respected? Certes, modification and improvement may be desirable, but ‘fundamental change?’ How so and in what direction? What is the nature of Tatchell’s ‘fundamental change’?
Are Narcissistic Homosexuality in males and Autogynephilia linked? I argue that they are.
Many have tried to negate the relationship between gender-dysphoric transition desire, and homosexuality. In one category, of course, this is futile. Homosexual Transsexuals (or true Transsexuals) are born with an innate condition called Sexual Inversion, which is the result of hormone-delivery anomalies in utero. This, being a biological effect, displays variation in intensity. So an aetiology is formed, with Transgender Homosexuals (feminine male and masculine female) at one end, and full Transsexuals (MtF and FtM) at the other. The precise point at which an individual sits depends on many factors; but they are on a relational scale of expressions of the same underlying phenomenon: innate Sexual Inversion. These individuals have normal levels of narcissism, in line with natal men and women.
Narcissism per se is not a disorder, rather a normal and useful trait; but in excess it causes Narcissistic Personality Disorders or NPDs. NPDs may be innate.
Nobody argues that Sexual Inversion is the cause of all homosexuality or transition desire; same-sex attraction and cross-sex identification can be symptoms of several underlying phenomena and it is not always easy to tease one from the other. But the Sexual Inversion phenomenon and the Transgender Homosexuality/Homosexual Transsexualism aetiology are easy to establish and identify. What about the other forms, though?
First, an excerpt from Travels with a Ladyboy, for your entertainment. We’ll get to the hairy down the page.
It’s Christmas Eve and we have come to a friend’s party in Ipil-Ipil. Much against my desire and better judgement I have funded the videoke machine, which lurks in the corner like a castrated Dalek — and is the more malevolent for its fate. This is blasting out at deafening volume, which is, I suppose, justified. It has to be that loud to drown out the neighbours on either side, whose own machines are threatening to trigger tsunamis.
There are eight adults in the company and I reflect that we make an interesting cross-section. Renz and Joanna are our hosts. He is a tricycle pilot and she is a housewife, but, technically, she’s actually his mistress, although they live as a couple. He already has a wife and three children that he supports. Occasionally Joanna works in a bar for extra money, but she has just had a baby — her first with Renz — and is fully occupied as a mother. Joanna is genuinely beautiful and is doing a remarkably sexy Filipina-Earth-Mother thing, her body still a little plump and luxurious from carrying her child.
Anti-clockwise next, me and Sam. I’m a natal man, heterosexual; Sam is a transwoman, though she calls herself a ladyboy. I get a bit annoyed at uppity Western mouthpiece SJWs saying ladyboys can’t call themselves that, by the way. Funny that it always seems to be the USican SJW types who engage in this particular cultural imperialism. They’ll be bombing us for it next; which would be funny were it not the standard USican response to any disagreement with their edicts, never mind the sheer irony.
(A holiday musing for my male readers, especially the older ones who might be suffering from a common problem.) It’s well known that women live longer, on average, than men do. Partly, of course, this is due to the fact that men tend to have more dangerous jobs, in our modern world. That was not always the case: until little more than a hundred years ago, men’s life expectancy was relatively much longer, because of the high levels of death in childbirth. But most men don’t die in mining accidents or in wars. So what actually kills men? Could it be that not having sex is what kills them?
On the surface, this seems like a ridiculous proposition, but bear with me. I think I might be on to something. Let’s look at the evolutionary case. The function of women is to produce ova, to conceive them, gestate them and then raise the child to adulthood. While the first two are easy, the third is less so and the fourth fraught, not least because a woman has to pass through the dread test of parturition to do it. 1In the early years of the 20th century, however, medical advances (proposed and enabled by men) reduced the Maternal Mortality Rate drastically in the UK; this became the global norm.
The basic unit of human society is not the nuclear family but the extended family or clan. The nuclear family is a modern, Anglo-Saxon invention, which has caused nothing but trouble. The clan is a matriarchal unit that ensures that the largest number of children survive to adulthood. Individuals who are not directly involved in having or rearing babies become burdens on the clan’s resources. This would appear to suggest an evolutionary limitation on maximum age. But on the other hand, this should apply equally to the sexes.
To complicate the issue, women (and whales) menopause. This is the cessation of ovulation around the age of fifty. But at that time, the woman still has millions of viable ova, since they are all actually made during her own embryonic stage; nature values female reproduction so highly that almost the first thing is does is to install it. Many reasons have been suggested that might explain the menopause, including the age of the ova, the ability of the mother to care for her children and so on. But none are conclusive. 2The menopause is proof positive, if one were needed, that humans were evolved to live long lives; adaptations like this do not occur without a reason.
The function of males in mammalian species is to impregnate females. There is no other prescribed one. That suggests, however, that as long as a man is impregnating women, he is valuable.
Male Menopause? Nope
There is no ‘male menopause’. Men are just as sexually capable at seventy as they are at thirty, given the same levels of general health.
Humans are by far the most socially complex of mammals. The structure of human society, based on the clan, might be similar to other primates, say the chimpanzees or bonobos, but don’t be misled into thinking they are the same. Human clans are always matriarchal. They are always led by the alpha females and not the males.
At the same time, human females are constantly sexually receptive, and can be so even after menopause. This is unusual. Other animals are only sexually receptive during the times that the female is in oestrus and capable of being fertilised. Why so? In order to bind male partners to individual females.
Of course, this can only work in conjunction with a set of social rules that oblige the males to access sex only with mate approval. Again, this is normal in the animal world; females select mates on their performance. But human females are sexually receptive all the time, rather than once or twice a year. The human clan works differently from other similar structures in that instead of only the Alpha male having access to sex, most males do, because the Alpha is only allowed to have approved sex with one woman and the others all need to be fertilised.
Access to sex: the real power
Because power over access to sex is so important to the clan and especially to the females inside it, numerous social structures, such as marriage and injunctions against rape were invented. Think about it: why is rape intrinsically worse than being beaten up or stabbed? It’s not. It is the denial of the woman’s privilege of control over access to her body that offends. Marriage is the social sanction, designed by women, that forces men to stop ‘sowing wild oats’ and only penetrate one woman. Marriage is codified female power over men.
This power is why women complain so much about prostitution: they see it as diluting their own agency over their bodies as well as challenging the social institution of marriage. After all, what’s the point of a woman denying sex to her partner, if he can get it elsewhere?
In addition, anti-prostitution campaigners consistently assert that sex work is fundamentally different from other kinds of physical labour. Somehow, having sex — an intrinsically pleasurable act — is worse than hacking away at a coal seam in sweating, dust-filled darkness and dying of pneumoconiosis? Nonsense; this is about power over access to sex.
Within a system where men are monogamously bonded to individual women, however, older men have a problem. While they remain biologically capable of siring children, their assigned partners will stop being fertile at menopause. This could be as early as 45. They are likely, then, to find their wives begin denying sex, as their vaginas lose natural lubricant and become irritable — likely itself a mechanism to encourage shutting off sex. These men cannot, then, seek a younger woman, because the society reserves those for younger men, who will stay with the woman and help her to raise children. The society does not care about individuals, it cares about ensuring its own future.
Competition in having sex
Certainly, some older men will be able to find younger women, but this is only in competition with other men, both of their age and much younger. A man in this position might end up just not having sex. But his entire function is to have sex. He has no other; his conceits and vanities, his achievements and successes, his fame and wealth only exist for one purpose: to enable him to have sex. If it is denied to him, then what?
The society has to sustain older men, just as it has to sustain older women. Even fit, healthy men reach a point in life when they simply can’t contribute as much as a younger male could and, unless there is some specific skill or talent that is valuable to the group, he’s a burden. Nature abhors a burden even more than a vacuum and so we have to ask, could it be that not having sex is a way of clearing out the older men? That, in other words, the female menopause is a way of jettisoning men who no longer have a purpose, since the women they have been bonded to can no longer become pregnant?
It follows that a life without sex is not really a life, for a man, so, is not having sex a way of killing men? So that they are not a burden to the society? Nature’s way of tidying up?
The good news
The good news is that, even if that were the case, then there would still be ways to counter it. While prostitution remains available, and even where it is ‘illegal’ it is still easy to find, men can still have regular sex, even if their wives are denying them. Clearly, we do not accept that men may force women to have sex, but a woman denying it to her husband has no moral recourse if he seeks it elsewhere. And if someone’s willing to sell it, well then.
Pattaya is a pretty good place to begin your new life and knock the years off. You’re only as old as the woman you’re, er, with. And there is more than a cornucopia of delight there. And they’ll never even know, back home.
If you want more kids, even in middle-age, it’s not a problem to arrange. Just take care in choosing a nice girl.
Alternatively, find a nice transwoman who wants to settle down and just be cosy with a man who really loves her. It will be worth the effort; she will wind back your clock fifteen years or more. (And you’ll need it to keep up with her.)
Happy New Year
Whatever you do, if you’ve hit that point in a married man’s life, where sex seems but a forlorn memory, remember: where there’s a will, there’s a way and there is always another path. You’re not condemned to a sexless existence. There are other ways. Happy New Year and make sure you get some. It will make you live longer.
Sexual Inversion is implicated in True or HomoSexual Transsexualism (HSTS) and Transgender Homosexuality, that is, feminine male homosexuality and masculine female. It is innate, has distinctive features and should be considered a form of Intersex.
Affected individuals may develop either into Transgender Homosexuals (feminine male/masculine female) or they may transition into HSTS. In males this phenomenon is usually associated with a range of physical effects including, but not limited to: lightness of build; tendency to be smaller than related males; fineness of bony structures; anomalies in digit ratios such that they tend to resemble the female typical, marked neoteny (baby face) and usually, delayed masculinisation even after puberty. As children they show marked preference for girl-typical toys and games and reject and avoid rough-and-tumble boyish ones. They may enjoy sewing or other delicate hobbies and they are likely to be talented.
They may be exceptional dancers and love performing; in cultures where Sexual Inversion is tolerated amongst children, it is not at all unusual to come across informal ‘beauty pageants’ set up in the street or the village square, where all the contestants are pre-pubescent boys dressed as girls. Their mothers and sisters form the crowd, shouting encouragement as their sons — or perhaps their daughters — extravagantly strut their stuff, elbows on hips, eyes flashing exaggerated ‘come on’ looks at the boys.
There are three types of gay men that can be identified relatively easily. There may be some overlap or admixture of types in specific individuals, but I believe that we can better understand male homosexuality through this Typology. These, together, constitute the New Gay Man, the modern homosexual male collective in the Anglo-Saxon West.
Transgender Homosexuality (Sexual Inversion)
Until very recently at least, this was the best-known form. It was what most people thought of when they thought ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’.
In this Type, males are feminised and females are masculinised across a range of parameters. For example, males tend to be slighter, smaller, more neotenous and masculinise more slowly than their peers, if they ever do. Broadly opposite effects appear in females.
This Type was the first to be identified and it was originally called ‘Sexual Inversion’. This is an appropriate term as it encapsulates the most significant feature of the Type: they have the sexuality commonly associated with the opposite sex. So males are attracted to masculinity and females to femininity. But this is full sexual inversion, so they also want to play the role of the opposite sex in coitus.
I propose that we see Sexual Inversion as the cause of Transgender Homosexuality.
Autogynephilia or AGP, ‘a man’s propensity to be aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman’ is one of the two possible causes of Gender Dysphoria. It is the cause of all non-homosexual Gender Dysphoria in males. It is completely different in nature from Homosexual Gender Dysphoria (HGD), which leads to Homosexual Transsexualism or HSTS. This article only discusses AGP, the men affected by it and possible treatment strategies. None of will apply to HSTS or HGD. I have written this in response to an increasing number of requests on my website and my YouTube channel, in order to try to help.
Autogynephilia can be a massively debilitating condition that may completely disrupt the life of the subject and his family. It can lead to depression, suicidality, alcoholism and a range of other disorders. It frequently results, especially in the Western profile, in loss of career, family, home and in financial ruin. Divorce and estrangement from wife and children are commonplace. People close to the subject are invariably traumatised by an adult transition and there is simply no support for them. There is absolutely no doubt that Autogynephilia is real and devastating.
Today is not the first time that feminism has threatened to destroy civilisation. It’s very interesting to note, if you study the mythologies of the ancient Levant on which Christianity is based, how the Goddess, symbolic of women, became identified with Satan. The serpent and the dragon (just a bigger version) were always creatures of the Goddess. The day aspect of the Goddess in Sumerian mythology was called Inanna (later Ishtar) whose uncle, Enki, was her closest ally. Enki frequently appeared as a snake. Later, still in the eastern Levant, the Akkadian god Marduk kills the Goddess in the form of Tiamat, a huge dragon. (This gives us all the Medusa, St George and so on stories.) Satan, of course, in the Garden of Eden, is the Serpent — the Goddess’ closest ally. This identification of serpent/dragon/goddess/woman pervades our culture.
Why does it do so? Feminism, of course, argues that this was a plot to suppress women by demonising them. But that’s not the only possible explanation. Could it be because women have tried to dominate society in the past and the stories are a warning against ever allowing that to happen again? Because our forefathers knew what happened when women emasculated society.
The New Gay Man lifestyle is not the sweet, gentle thing you have been told it is. Instead it is based on organised, clandestine pederasty and the ruthless exploitation of boys. Within it, young boys, the modern erominos, are seduced by older pederasts. When they become older themselves, and so unattractive, they become the erastes to a new generation of erominos in turn. In contrast to the Greek system, however, these individuals are not training boys to be men, but only to be pederasts like themselves.
Young feminine homosexual boys want real heterosexual men, but there is ZERO chance of them getting one, as ‘gay boys’. Absolutely none. So they are thrown to the pederasts of the New Gay Man lifestyle, which has managed to persuade legislators of its innocence. There is an escape route, though.
The great myth of ‘gay sex’ is that it occurs between two big alpha males. In reality, usually what happens is that weaker, submissive males offer themselves for, or are simply coerced into, sex with an alpha male, to use the wolf-pack analogy.
Wolf-packs contain both patriarchal and matriarchal hierarchies, which makes them even more interesting, but for now we’ll concentrate on the male, patriarchal side.
There is a phenomenon called ‘situational homosexuality’. In this, weaker males may sexually pair with stronger ones, if women are not present or available. One example of this is ‘prison sex’ which occurs in all-male prisons (we’re only discussing male homosexuality here. )