Originally posted 2018-10-15 10:57:00.
Wolf-pack social hierarchies give a useful insight into homosexual male society in the West, the New Gay Man culture.
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. )
Prisons are like wolf-packs
Male prisons are absolute patriarchies, of course, with the most powerful males being in charge. They are the equivalent of the male hierarchy in a wolf-pack. But unlike the wolf-pack, females are not just unavailable, they are not present at all.
Here, weaker males are sought as sexual partners, especially if they are physically slight or otherwise feminine. The trade-off, of course, is protection, especially from the beta-males, who are constantly vying for status and dominance, as well as sex. In this scenario, the receptive male is a wolf-pack omega-male; he is at the bottom of the heap and survival, rather than dominance, is his primary interest. But crucially, the sexual dynamic in this relationship is heterosexual: one partner plays the male and the other the female roles.
Essentially, the omega’s reasoning, for entering into such a sexual relationship is this: it might be preferable to choose your own pedicator than to be pedicated by every randy gorilla in the place, or worse. Your partner might be a monster but at least he’s the monster you know; and trading off sexual favours may protect you from the worst of his excesses. In return, you will be protected from assault, either sexually or simply physically, by other men.
Typically, men who enter into these arrangements in prison are completely heterosexual outside it.
Wolf-packs do not contain homosexual males
How the alpha males get over their own natural revulsion for masculinity seems to be dealt with in behavioural, rather than visual terms and it is worth remembering that, in the wolf-pack analogy, alpha and beta males will frequently mount the omegas. That is because penetration, in this context, is an act of domination. (And not, as Serano has fallaciously asserted, of homosexuality. There are no homosexual animals. It is uniquely a human phenomenon.) Omega males in wolf-packs have to be constantly aware of the threat of attack and of being violently mounted, so they adopt extremely submissive behaviours at all times, their ears lowered and their tails between their legs — and it is worth reflecting on why they put their tails there. The Omega males in the prison situation face a similar situation and they adopt similar tactics: submission and non-aggression.
In other words, they deliberately avoid masculine behaviour and turn themselves into ‘not men’. In this status they are not a threat to the alpha or beta males, but, at the same time, are subject to being raped by any one of them that takes the fancy: except, of course, if they become the sexual partner of one of the powerful males.
This is prison, so everyone has short hair and wears fatigues. But the catamite males (the ‘girls’) act in a noticeably feminine and submissive manner towards their partners and — perhaps surprisingly — this appears to be respected by the other men. In the film ‘Con Air’, there was a nicely observed male homosexual character played by Renoly Santiago. The only thing that was missing was her relationship to a specific alpha male, although one was hinted at between her and Nicholas Cage.
Another wolf-pack analogy comes from Hunter S Thompsons’s seminal book ‘Hell’s Angels’. In this, the writer describes how women who were bonded to one of the Angels were treated with respect by the others. But, if they broke the rules, especially by seducing another man, then they were likely to be gang-raped in a procedure called ‘making a mama’. The object was to rape, humiliate and impregnate the woman, as punishment for disrespecting a fellow male. All of the Angels present, according to Thompson, would take turns in raping the woman, in order to restore the honour of their brother, whom she had disrespected. This, by the way, was a genuinely patriarchal society in which rape was specifically used to control the behaviour of women.
But why was it not simply left to the injured party and the man who had trespassed to sort it out in a fist-fight? After all, this was an extremely violent group of men who were used to fighting and the book describes in gory detail the techniques they used.
The wolf-pack of the Angels itself was a complete patriarchy in which men held all the power. But the strength of the group was in its members. It could not afford for one or more of the members to be badly injured or killed in a fight over a woman. Worse, two men fighting like this might draw their friends into the fracas and could even split the wolf-pack.
It is axiomatic that warriors — which is what the Angels were — cannot waste precious blood and life fighting over women. This need has been reflected in cultures all over the world, throughout history.
The Angels were constantly in conflict with both the law and other gangs, notably the Satan’s Slaves, who would happily have attacked and occupied their territory had the gang been weakened. All the Angels had to protect themselves and their position was their military strength as a brotherhood. And this had to be preserved.
So the offence, of a woman having sex with a man to whom she was not bonded, was seen as an offence against the group, rather than the individual, and the punishment was meted out to the woman by the group of men. Rape becomes a method of social control and in this case the Angels’ reasoning, while harsh, was sound: women’s shenanigans can weaken the gang’s solidarity and they must stop. In other words, men’s relationships to each other as warriors is far more important than their relationships with women.
So, women, according to the book, were safe, treated with respect, as long as they respected the rule that tied them to one man. They could even terminate a relationship with one Angel and later begin one with another; but promiscuity was not tolerated and would be punished, not because women were particularly disrespected, but because group solidarity and cohesion was paramount.
The omega males who have emasculated themselves and made themselves into effective ‘not-men’ in prison and other situations, are in a similar position. If they sexually bond to a dominant male, then they will be left alone, as long as they remain monogamous. But if they do not form such a relationship, they are open targets for rape.
Another great cultural example of the wolf-pack is in Mel Gibson’s breakthrough film ‘Mad Max 2 — The Road Warrior’ where there is a clearly stated homosexual relationship between two of the villains, one a massive, aggressive character and the other obviously submissive. This sub-plot demonstrates the lover/beloved nature of the relationship and also its protector/protected character. Although both the partners in this relationship are actually male, one is highly feminised and the other masculinised. In fact, the relationship appears to be — and actually is — conventionally heterosexual.
Everything that we should expect to see in the traditional view of a sexual relationship between two males was advertised. One partner was strong, big, aggressive, dominant, masculine and older; the other was slight, passive-aggressive, submissive, feminine and younger. (As a matter of fact, the homo-eroticism in this film is off the scale; even the cis girls look like boys. Ah, the 80s, we shall never see your like again.)
Debunking the New Gay Man
It is a spectacular illustration of how completely the masculinist New Gay Man project, which says ‘We’re men like other men but love each other’, and the propaganda drive surrounding it has come to dominate our understanding of homosexuality. Yet at the same time it shows how out of tune the New Gay Man is. Everywhere in the world, outside le Monde Anglo-Saxon, the Roman sexual sensibilities so clearly illustrated in Mad Max 2 continue to prevail, despite the efforts of US American ‘activists’ to suppress them. So-called ‘egalitarian’ or ‘masculinist’ homosexuality simply does not exist outside a very small cultural milieu — the outlier of an outlier.
The irony is that, if truth be known, the masculinist New Gay ideal does not really exist in le Monde Anglo-Saxon either. New Gay Man culture is a wolf-pack; a ravenous, secretive goldfish-bowl in which young boys are predated on by older males until they ‘come of age’ and become predators in their own right.
The only escape from this savage meat market, for a submissive, homosexual male who has been sucked into it and does not want to penetrate, or is too feminine to be a predator, is to establish a relationship with another like himself — or perhaps better, ‘herself’. This relationship, by definition, is a lesbian one, since neither partner is a man.
(A better solution, for the most feminine, would be to avoid this altogether and develop into women; then they can assimilate into mainstream society as women and enjoy the benefits of female privilege. The principal one of these, of course, is protection from rape.)
In Alan Parker’s 1976 film ‘Midnight Express’ the lead, Brad Davis, watches in horror as a gang of adolescent males attack and rape another boy. ‘New arrival,’ says co-star John Hurt, laconically. In other words, ‘This is the way the society works: you will be raped unless you are tough enough to defend yourself or you find a protector’. Again, the miasma of male homosexuality pervades this film, but in a much darker mood than Mad Max.
The film did miss one important point about prisons like this. The boys are incarcerated in communal dormitories, in overcrowded, squalid conditions. These dormitories become de facto brothels for the adult male populations. Boys prostitute themselves in exchange for tobacco, drugs, chocolate or any other luxury that can be smuggled into the prison.
At the same time they are the forced concubines of the prison guards, who see sex with them as a legitimate perk of the job. Again, becoming the favoured playmate of a guard ensures the boy’s protection from any male inmate; but refusal to comply is likely to lead to a very tough life. This is skipped over by the director, probably to avoid upsetting the audience too much.
(I have discussed this with a number of individuals who have spent time, usually for petty crimes, in some tough jails in southeast Asia: the above description is accurate.)
However, the film redeems itself through the potential protector — and rapist — of the young hero, the prison governor himself, whose sexual intentions are stated early on. Clearly, acquiescing to such an approach would have made the hero untouchable and so dramatically improve his life. But due to a cultural mismatch between the US American Christian hero and the Turkish Muslim governor, that the exchange might be beneficial to the former either escapes him or he is unable to accept being penetrated.
The whole film revolves around the theme of male rape and power within a true patriarchy. The final scene, which begins with an attempt to rape the hero, ends instead with the hero ‘raping’ his attacker, in metaphor. The governor is pushed onto a projecting clothes-hanger fixed to the wall (shaped to resemble a penis) which bursts into his skull and kills him: the rapist raped. The hero then escapes, wearing the dead man’s uniform. Using our wolf-pack analogy, this was the triumph of the underdog, with the omega male turning the tables on the Alpha and raping him.
The dynamic of homosexual male relations is far better illustrated in these productions than in New Gay Man propaganda films like ‘Brokeback Mountain’ which confuses the non-sexual or Platonic affection between masculine men, like ‘bromances’ and homophilia, with sexual relationships.