I’m currently spending a couple of weeks back in the UK. I rarely visit these days and when I do, my greatest pleasure is to spend hours browsing in bookshops, and especially second-hand bookshops. This isn’t because I’m a cheapskate but rather because books published before this century often told the truth, and the greater truth that they told, the more likely it is that they will now be out-of-print.
I always head straight for the sections on sociology, history, and ‘gender and politics’. There’s always a slim chance I might find an unknown early men’s rights classic, or failing that, simply an honest book on male sexuality. I even buy a lot of feminist books, and above all histories that include or focus on the Suffragettes and/or the Social Purity Movements of the late 19th century. But I also look out for anything on the history of homosexuality, for reasons I will elaborate upon below. Whilst browsing in a particularly well-stocked second-hand bookshop yesterday I came across an academic work entitled “Literary Visions of Homosexuality” – a collection of essays published in the 1980’s and edited by Stuart Kellog. It was £4, so I wasn’t sure whether to buy it, but upon perusing the chapter titles, which include – “To Love a Medieval Boy” – I decided to go for it. Upon browsing it when I got back to my rented apartment, I discovered to my delight that one quote from the 18th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham was worth the price alone. It’s taken from private correspondence to his father, and he expresses his frustration at the hostility of the time to any rational discussion as to the morality of homosexuality.
“A battery of grape shot composed of all the expressions of abhorrence that language has given or can give birth to is by each newspaper and every other periodical kept continually playing upon this ground. No wonder that down to this instant no man with the torch of reason in his hand should have found nerve enough to set foot on it. Miscreant! You are one of them then! Such are the thanks he would receive, such the bad thanks which any man who should attempt to carry upon this part of the field of morality those lights to which all other parts are open ever could or even now can rationally expect to receive.”
The parallels to which we face in bravely discussing the modern “love that dare not speak its name” are obvious. In particular, he notes the fact that you will be labelled as “one of them”. This is true, as we know all too well, whether it is discussing the age of consent, the issue as to whether it is normal to find teenage girls attractive, or the justifications for laws on ‘child porn’. Nothing has changed in 200 years of progress, except the nature of the “field of (sexual) morality” which is now out of bounds except to the foolhardy or the extremely brave (although it should be noted that ‘homosexuality’ until legalization was always primarily the love between men and boys).
It might seem grossly counter-intuitive to believe that homosexuality and its history may have important lessons for we defenders of normal male (hetero)sexuality. But it’s a truth we have to recognize. The quote from Jeremy Bentham is just one example. Homosexuality was once as taboo, as criminal, as reviled, and as “indefensible” as is sex with teen girls today.
Homosexuality was surpressed for hundreds of years throughout the Western World. How did homosexuals survive during these times? How did they view themselves? How did they retain hope? The second-hand book I bought yesterday explores these issues, primarily through the example of literary expression. Another issue explored in the book is whether homosexuality is a kind of opposite to heterosexuality, as in actively opposed to it, or is it simply another expression of sexuality? Is it a kind of liberation from heterosexuality? In my view, yes it is. Or rather, it is a liberation from female defined sexuality. But of course, we don’t have to be homosexuals to experience this liberation. As Male Sexualists, we seek the same kind of freedom and liberation from the female sexual imperatives as homosexuals enjoy (at least to an extent – their sad acceptance of the feminist age of consent, and the contrived “gay marriage” issue are serious limitations). But we see this in terms of normal male sexuality directed towards female youth and beauty. I touched upon this recently in my article – “What Gay History Teaches Us About Blaming Women“.
Like it or not, we are the new homosexuals. The evil force of feminism is so powerful that it has turned normal male sexuality into the new ‘love that dare not speak its name’. Homosexuality survived persecution for hundreds of years. We may need to do the same. Or more hopefully, learning from their lessons will ensure that our dark times last only for years and not centuries.
Nice hobby!
The main difference is that homosexuality is practiced by a very small percentage of men. So the question becomes, can the government continue to demonize half of the population’s desires with the consent of Anglosphere society and the demonized men themselves? So far, it would appear the answer is yes.
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/27/the-conservatives-on-the-supreme-court-are-so-scared-of-nudity-theyll-throw-out-the-first-amendment/
Here, we have cuck conservatives upholding feminist age verification (censorship) for materials deemed “obscene” on the internet with the tired trope of “protecting children”. It was actually opposed by Kagan, a woman supreme court judge. Cucks and women take turns implementing feminism while pretending to oppose each other, it seems. Soon, there will be feminist age verification (censorship) for Youtube channels like Citycrusher, and the age will be raised to 21.
This also welcomes the argument for age-verified VPNs. This all started with the foot in the door of requiring “obscene” websites to ask the user if they are 18 to continue. Although this was always obviously ridiculous, it allowed cucks and women the opportunity to strengthen the requirement, instead of asking altogether why it was even needed in the first place. This is why you must never give cucks and women an inch on anything they say that is ridiculous and promotes an opportunity for misandry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv3Akg53YBI
Feminists (cucks and women) will always be able to outdo any rational argument with pure “think of the children” hysteria because feminism is a society-wide shit test as explained by Coach Red Pill. Anglo males are more feminine than ever from endocrine disrupting chemicals and plastics, so they will continue to fail the shit test, the biggest one being the age of consent for “obscene” activities. How about an agree and amplify response? That would look something like this: “yes people under 18 have no concept or desire to do anything the government tells them is bad, just like throughout history when there was no “age of consent” no one under 18 was ever interested in sex, and any time they were (which was of course impossible), horrible things happened, no one had any fun, and the human race came to an end, obviously.” That is the only proven way to deal with feminine, hysterical shit tests from cucks and women.
I came across quite an interesting and passionate article against age verification from none other than xvideos.com today. A lot of comments from angry porn fans underneath too. Perhaps some kind of pushback might happen after all?
https://pornbiz.com/post/17/the_scam_of_age_verification
Excellent article. At least we know xvideos knows under 18 sex is healthy. Still too many age cuck USA idiots too thick to realize they are responsible for their own demise. But the Euros had better comments, and this is definitely the angriest I’ve seen average USA people with the cuck conservatives in quite a while.
There are now over 3,000 angry comments underneath the article: https://pornbiz.com/post/17/the_scam_of_age_verification
It beggers belief that anybody who claims to fight against feminist anti-sex laws could be so mentally retarded that they think it’s a good move to dismiss that kind of potential demographic as ‘wankers’ who deserve to go to prison.
I have been reading the ‘Literary Visions of Homosexuality’ book I bought earlier in the year, and the chapter that explains the context of the Bentham quote on the dangers of writing rationally about homosexuality.
It seems that the situation for homos in the early 19th century was very similar to that of we normal men in the early 21st century. In some ways it was worse for them, particularly of course in the fact that homosexuality was punishable (and punished regularly) by hanging.
The police would conduct stings, just like they do today to catch ‘sex crimes’, that would lead to gay men being hanged.
But most relevant, I find, is that society was becoming more liberal and ‘progressive’, and reform was sweeping society in almost every area, and yet attitudes towards homosexuality – and even the law itself – were hardening.
This is the context of the Bentham quote.
Mobs of up to 20,000 would turn up outside court baying for blood when homosexuals were on trial. That doesn’t even happen for ‘paedophiles’ today.
Early anonymous homosexuals who spoke out for reform would point out the hypocrisy of public figures being homosexual. For example, a poem attributed to Lord Byron (but probably written by an associate after his death) accuses a prominent anti-slave trade campaigner of being a closet homosexual (which turned out to be true – he was later arrested and forced into exile).
Compare with today’s Epstein hysteria and the ‘MAPs’. Perhaps I’m wrong, but are any MAPs pointing out the sheer paedocrisy of all these powerful people supposedly having sex with teen girls and yet not lifting a finger or ever speaking out against paedohysteria or the age of consent?
In fact, to my knowledge, I’m the only guy whose constantly pointing out hypocrisy (and even tried to turn it into the paedocrite meme). How can that be? (the successful ‘age cuck’ meme is not really about hypocrisy as such).
One way, though, that homos did have it better in the early 19th century Britain was that (if they had the means like Lord Byron) they could simply escape to countries like Italy or Turkey were boy love was all the rage.