Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Same Sex

I have sometimes been called (wrongly) a homophobe. But let’s start with the word “homosexual.” The “homo,” per se, has nothing to do with homosexuality. It comes from the Greek “homos,” the same, as it does in homonym, homogeny, homologous and various others involving sameness. So “homosexual,” means same sex practitioner. It can even refer to dogs or other animals having sex with one of their own kind. It does refer to two men or two women having sex with each other. Until fairly recently, this was considered wrong, but not anymore, hence even same sex marriage is by now almost universally, legally practiced. If you doubt it, just ask the Supreme Court.

This opens the question of what is, or is considered, “normal.” Essentially, normal is what a large number of people practice, and is not considered immoral. In fact, it has nothing to do with morality or immorality, but only with frequency. If it is ever revealed that a large enough number of people have sex with animals (think D. H. Lawrence’s “St. Mawr” and horses), something called zoophilia will then become normal. To be sure, it appears as of now fairly rare compared to homosexuality, but that could change, if only farm boys would speak up. All that it takes is for the onus to become removed, and a thing becomes okay. Consider bikinis or nude beaches or legalized marijuana.

This is where mea culpa comes in. A very famous critic who used to be my friend and I would amuse ourselves by outing famous persons who were widely considered heterosexual. Uncloseting, to coin a word, seemed piquant. But  closetedness in former days was prudent and excusable, practiced by some highly respectable persons. Think of such people as (in some cases I merely surmise) Leonardo da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, Thomas Mann, Ravel, Manuel de Falla, Saint-Saens, Henry de Montherlant, Nikolay Myaskovsky, Michael Tippett, Michael Redgrave. Perhaps also the delightful Mompou. Some were married, like Leonard Bernstein, and (I suspect) my admired Lennox Berkeley. And surely others.

This is comparable to ferreting out clandestine Jews, unavowed for similar reasons.
Despite much progress in this area, anti-Semitism won’t quite go away. To no avail does one say “Some of my best friends are . . .” here fill in blacks, gays, Jews--it proves nothing, and it does not exculpate you. I am reminded of that great French writer Jules Renard noting, “We are all anti-Semites. A few of us have the courage or coquetry not to let it show.” Very cannily put, note even the alliteration on C in French as in English.

For whatever it is worth—not much—I have always had gay friends. One of them was the very clever young Donald Lemkuhl, who called me Nina Simone and disappeared into England (more about that anon) and left me wondering what became of him. He did have the makings of a poet, but not enough discipline. Of course, if you are in the arts, believe it or not even as just a drama critic, you must come into contact with many homosexuals, although you don’t end up believing with Gore Vidal that everyone is really bisexual.

But why are so many in the arts gay? There are numerous explanations much debated, though surely in large part because in the arts there is no homophobia, and there is even gay pride. Homosexuality may, for instance, have something to do with excessive love of your mother leading you to emulation. Example: Kevin Spacey used to show up at events with his mother as his date. Growing up without affection for sports, being of a delicate physique and loving theater—dressing up, role playing on and off the school stage--all these may be inducements. Perhaps even reading too much Oscar Wilde. When I briefly taught at a Southern university, the only library copy of the sole available Wilde biography was heavily annotated by my one flagrantly gay student.

Homosexual friendships, whether or not declared as such, are the stuff of myth and literature. Think only of the story of Damon and Pythias, or Schiller’s famous poem, “Die Buergschaft.” Think also of great unrequited loves, such as A. E. Housman’s unreciprocated adoration of the straight friend Moses Jackson. But there are so many enduring homosexual relationships as Auden’s with Chester Kallman and especially Britten’s with Peter Pears. I recall hearing how shocked the great Scottish string player William Primrose was when staying with Britten and spotting Britten’s and Pears’s slippers side by side under the same bed.

At first glance one may be surprised by how many great all-male affairs take place in England. Think E. M. Forster and Maurice and all those complicated relationships in the Bloomsbury group. England, despite the country’s until fairly recently stiff penalties for homosexual incidents, has been a thriving land of homosexuals. As a lovely American former girlfriend of mine remarked about her affair with an English duke, scratch any Englishman and out comes the homosexual. With the duke—Charlie, as she referred to him—when in bed together, she had to do all the work, his heart was not quite in it.

Why all that homosexuality? I think it is because until recently the sexes grew up separately from each other, there being no coeducation in Britain, so that  schoolboys had to be sexually boys with boys. I must admit though that during my one-year stint at a British public school I saw no direct homosexuality, but that may have been because, as a foreigner, I did not become intimate with anyone.

There is also not infrequently a tendency among homosexuals to feel superior to “straights.” The wonderful German writer, Erich Kaestner, admonishes gays in a poem not to feel proud “just because you do it from behind.” Which reminds me of two prominent members of Hungary’s classical music scene who had long been living together suddenly breaking up. After some years, however, they resumed their relationship. As the Budapest wits would have it, the pair must have said not let’s start from the beginning [in Hungarian, from the front] but let’s start from the back.

Interestingly, though I can recall various other kinds of jokes, I can’t come up with a single homosexual one. Have there not been any? Have I repressed some? Have they been inferior? I don’t know; I do know that the two persons I would most have liked to meet, Oscar Wilde and Noel Coward, both were gay. Coward I came close to one night backstage at “South Pacific” on Broadway. I had gone back to congratulate an acquaintance who, as standby that night, had splendidly played the lead. There I crossed paths with Coward going to make peace with Mary Martin, with whom he had had a falling out in London at his “Pacific 1860.”

Although I don’t collect autographs, I would have made an exception for Coward, but all I had with me was Spenser’s “The Faerie Queene,” which I considered a little too suitable. When, much later, I met Bea Lilly and told her about this, she said I should have gone ahead: Noel would gladly sign anything famous as if his own.

Once or twice in my life I have been accosted by homosexuals. Once when teaching in Seattle, while gazing at a store window. “You should have slapped him,” someone later told me. “Not at all,” I answered, “I felt rather flattered.” Quite recently, a well-dressed, middle-aged man on a Metro North train chose to sit opposite me although there were plenty of empty seats all around. After a while, he smiled and laid his hand on my knee. I withdrew my 92-year-old leg, but was too old not to feel a bit flattered.


  1. Simon is asking the wrong questions. Even before 'gay marriage' and 'gay pride parades', most Western nations came to accept the fact that some people are born homo. And most sectors of society were perfectly fine with homos being homo and doing their thing.

    The notable thing is not 'gay rights' but the rise of Gay Rites as a neo-religion. Why is there this crazy worship of homos? Why is 'pride' now used synonymous with homosexuality. Is penetration of fecal holes something to be proud of? Because our society is so homomaniacal, media/academia promote ass-bunging for even women. As the result of widespread practice of butt-banging, anal cancer has quadrupled among millennials. More women than ever are stuck with butt cancer and will have to wear colostomy bags.

    And if homo movement was secular, why are homos now taking over churches? In Europe, churches are forced to marry homos. In the US, homos take over churches and drape them with 'gay' colors, as if Jesus died to praise the marriage of men who bugger each other in the fecal holes.

    1. The divide is not between those who say 'God hates fags' and those who want tolerance for homos. I want tolerance for homos because some people are born homo and wanna bang bungs. It's not their fault that they want to stick their penises into shitholes of other men.

      The divide is between people who accept tolerance of homos versus those who promote homo-stuff as something worthy of celebration, admiration, worship, and etc. So, entire streets are closed down to have massive degenerate homo parades. An entire MONTH is devoted to a bunch of bung-bangers. Children in school are taught that fecal-hole-fucking is as biologically meaningful as real sex involving complementary organs that create life. So, we are to believe that Kevin Spacey's asshole has equal sexual-biological validity as his mother's poon that birthed him.

    2. The real divide is between those who understand the need for tolerance of homos. They understand that homos are sexually defective. Their form of sexuality uses wrong organs and cannot produce life. Male homo 'sex' leads to tons of anal cancer and other diseases.

      But the OTHER side says we need to associate homosexuality with rainbow. What does the beautiful rainbow have to do with a homo's penis smeared with fecal matter.. or with a tranny who goes to a doctor to have his penis and balls cut off and replaced with fake vagina? What does homo stuff and tranny stuff have to do with wisdom sought be religion and spirituality? Did Buddha seek nirvana only to praise men who stick their dongs up bungs of other men? Really?

      Also, the term 'homophobia' is bogus. Phobia is an extreme fearful panicked reaction to something that is harmless. There is no such thing as homoophobia. Even those who oppose the homo agenda with fervor do not have this ultra-fear of homosexuals. Worse, 'homophobia' is used to smear ANYONE who says something funny or unkind about homos. So, if you find homos funny and crack a joke, you're also called a 'homophobe'. Since when is finding something funny a form of 'phobia'? And homos are funny in their limp-wristed, lisping, flaming way. Just look at homo parades and they are so campy and silly and trashy.

    3. The reason why homos are so powerful is because they spent all their time working to accumulate power. Since most homos don't have families, they spent more time on earning money and gaining influence. Also, because homos are vain and narcissistic, they tend to focus on elite fields with glamour, and they love to suck up to the rich and privileged. So, the elite classes found homos to be useful and loyal.

      But the main reason why homos got so powerful is because Jews became the rulers of the West. Jews are the elite minority elite in the US. They are the 2% that rules over the 98%. Jews are nervous about this power. After all, it's not normal for the 2% to rule the 98%. So, Jews have promoted homo worship as their proxy. By normalizing the worship of minority homos by straight people(who are 98% of the population), Jews seek to normalize gentiles(98%) serving Jews. So, homo minority power and Jewish minority power are complementary in normalizing the rightness of the minority to rule over the majority.

    4. Another reason is people are naturally religious. Even after all this Enlightenment stuff, people want to worship something. So, French Revolution led to cult of Napoleon. Atheist communism led to worship of Marx and Lenin and Mao. And capitalism led to rise of Idols and Celebrities who are iconic objects of worship by their mindless fans. Look how fans of Michael Jackson bawled like babies. Look how Princess Diana became a figure of adulation to all those trashy morons.

      In a world where celebrity is king, it's only natural that the object of worship among liberals would be the vain and narcissitic homos who are into self-worship.

      Homos were never gonna be content with tolerance. They are so into themselves. They are so ooh-lala and vain in their narcissism and self-aggrandizement. They want to be admired, celebrated, and worshiped by others. They want to be worshiped like greek gods.
      So, homo-worship is neo-pagan worship of idolatry of vanity and narcissism. Homos and trannies are so deluded that they see themselves as beautiful. A fat tranny with makeup on his face, wig, and dress thinks he really is divine.

      So, what began as 'gay rights' turned into sickening Gay Rites. We now have ceremonies and rituals in worship of homos and trannies who worship themselves as divine, darling, and dashing.

      Simon is a nut. He supports Merkel and Hillary who are for open borders for third world thugs. But he also supports homo worship. He's for filling Europe with more third world barbarians who wanna beat up homos and for promoting homos as a special people.

    5. Another reason why homos became the new face of the Left?
      It's because rich folks wanted to destroy the true meaning of Leftism.
      Leftism used to mean rights for the working class. It meant better conditions and higher wages for the proletariat.

      But in a world where the rich are getting richer, they fear class politics. They fear the middle class and working class rising against the elites who are the only ones who are gaining all the wealth and privilege. Since classic leftism favored the working class and class politics, the rich and powerful promoted homos and trannies as the face of New Leftism. Since homos and trannies love privilege and glamour, they bound to work with rich people and serve the elites than struggle against them. Look at all the homos in Hollywood, Wall Street, Las Vegas, Fashion, silicon valley, etc. They work with the rich against the working class.

      So, the rich used homos and trannies to destroy classic leftism. Mayday was turned into Gayday. So, Hillary and John Simon side with Wall Street and War State against working class whom elitist Simon despises.

      And elites seek to suppress the wages of workers by importing tons of foreigners in name of 'Diversity'. Immigrants serve as scab labor force to keep the wages low for the working class.

      Simon used to be a humanist who admired films like BANDITS OF ORGOSOLO. But now, he's just a shill of globalist super-rich.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. I love when Simon changes the background. It's such a charming shock to the eyes.

    Well, this topic is gonna bring out the political weirdos. Already, Mister Ants-in-his-pants is spamming the comment box with his soapbox bullshit.

    I love gays. I think they should be able to do anything they want and have every right that the rest of us have. . . .BUT, I don't see how *guys* can be gay. You wake up in morning (naked) with your arm around a guy with a hairy back and ass? Whoa, Nelly!! Sorry, I just can't fathom that.

    Here, I'm going to give my lover a kiss. My lover turns around slowly, eyes closed, and it's a dude with a full beard. I'll tell you right now, I'm runnin' my ass off out the door. No way, Man. I ain't gonna slip the tongue with someone that has a full beard.

    Now, women can be gay all they want. In fact, I encourage that. Especially if I can squeeze myself in between those four lovely arms and legs. Nothing wrong with it. Not gross in the least.

    The problem with gay women is they're very rarely the beautiful hotties that you see in --let's say -- pornos. No, they're usually less than feminine by a long shot, and pretty aggressive. In other words, they're kind of manly. That's the exact reason they became gay because they didn't enjoy being around men, and yet here they are, pretending to be masculine. Makes no sense.

    The problem arises when gays hit on us straight people. Gay guys are known to do that >> like what happened to Simon. It's happened to me a few times. We had a gay guy in the Navy. He had shockingly red hair. You wouldn't believe how red his hair was. When he was on watch in the middle of the night, he would reach under the covers and try to grab himself a little maritime member. They found out and kicked him off the ship.

    All in all, though, I think we should just leave gays alone. They're regular people just like we are only they live and have sex with the same sex. So what? It's none of my business what people do in their own bedroom.

  5. High Cs

    A little more thought,
    Less tapping please,
    Mr. Simon is assuredly not
    A party to vast conspiracies.

    As it were, his plot
    For Universal Harmony
    Is a fiendishly simple recipe:
    To rid the world of grosheries.

    He does not pine o'er a Pine,
    Nor pay mind to a Kutcher,
    But may have paddling designs,
    When language they butcher.

  6. One of my first memories of something gay was when I was around 10-11 years old. My father and I were somewhere, I can't remember where, and we both had to use the public restroom. I went into a stall because there was only one urinal. While in there, I noticed there was a hole in the stall wall leading into the other stall. It was a hole about at the height of a grown man's penis. It had been sanded down so it was smooth all the way around. Someone had written stuff too. I wasn't sure what it was there for, but in my mind, I had a very vague idea. I was most surprised by how large the hole was. Did grown men have dicks that big? When I came out, my father was smiling at me and asked if I was ready. I thought about asking him what the hole was doing there but then decided against it. We were at a ball game or something, and having a good time. Later on, I was glad I didn't say anything to him. I know him, and he would have been embarrassed. Good move on my part.

  7. Why are homos so devious and powerful? Because they have both masculine instinct and feminine intuition. Their approach to power is passive/aggressive. They have elegantly refined the art of power like a sharpened blade. It's like the Tim Roth character in ROB ROY. He's cat-like. Pound for pound, cats are the most deadly predators. They are more agile and efficient in movement than any dog or bear. He's aggressive and vicious but also skilled and masterly. So fine-tuned. Manly types tend to be overly brutish in their use of power. They are overly obvious. Womanly types tend to be too yielding and soft. But homos have masculine toughness sharped by feminine touch.

    Jewish Power is the same way. Jews are passive/aggressive. They are pushy and dig into their opponents. But because most Jews are not he-man types, they rely on verbal skills, wit, and mugging for sympathy. It's like the saying, "Jew cries out in pain as he hits you." Jews are the ruling elites in the US. They use media to denounce, demean, and defame white gentiles but when white gentiles complain about such nasty treatment, Jews scream 'antisemite!!'.

  8. Homo deviousness can be seen in the way they frame their arguments. Homos bitch that 'homophobes' interfere in other people's private affairs -- what happens in the bedroom -- , but this is totally bogus.

    Few people in this day and age are 'God Hates Fag' types who want to ban sodomy or burn homos at the stake. Even conservatives acknowledge the right of homos to be homo and do their own thing, esp as GOP is filled with homo politicians.
    So, no one has problems with homos coming out of the closet and doing their own thing in the privacy of their bedrooms.

    The real issue is that homos have now come out of their bedrooms and turned entire streets, schools, and entertainment into displays of homo perversion and/or homo holiness. Homos are funny this way.
    On the one hand, they take pride in being wild and crazy flaming homos. They claim to be edgy, daring, and devil-may-care breakers of taboos. They take pride in their flamboyant debauchery and decadence. Homos present themselves as self-indulgent orgy-porgers who've built neo-sodom-and-gomorrah.

    But homos, being so vain and self-aggrandizing, aren't content to only be the queens of excess and hedonism. They also want to be objects of sanctimonious worship as well. So, even as one side of homo agenda celebrates the wild degenerate porny side of homosexuality, another side goes into 'father knows best' and presents homos as more-normal-than-normal, more whitebread than whitebread, more suburban-than-suburban, more squeaky-clean-than-squeaky-clean. You'd think you're watching homo leave-it-to-beaver and ozzie-and-harriet.

    Also, even as homos indulge in sodom-and-gomorroh-like-behavior, they also infiltrate christian churches and turn them into dens of homo-worship.

    And consider the AIDS epidemic. It resulted from homos acting like crazy degenerates buggering one another in bathhouses. But instead of taking responsibility, homos would have us believe they were victims of 'homophobic indifference' and, as such, holy martyrs like Tom Hanks in PHILADELPHIA.

    Jews are the same way. Too many Jews acted like Bernie Madoff and destroyed the economy in 2008, but they bitch about how 'antisemitism' is targeting all these wonderful Jews who are trying to fix the economy.
    Jews also claim to be champions of free speech but seek to shut down any speech critical of Jewish power as 'hate speech'.

    And blacks are the same way. Blacks revel in thug culture of rap and pimp-gangsterism. They present themselves as crazy thugs and murderers. They glamorize that stuff.
    But they also wrap themselves in MLK symbolism and act as if they're Magic Negroes and eternal victims and champions of peace.
    BLM is hilarious. Blacks kill other blacks and rob/murder so many non-blacks, but they act like blacks are the main victims of non-black violence.

    But then, such hypocrisy is part of Americanism. America is an imperialist nation and empire... but it goes around promoting itself as a 'democracy' for 'human rights'. That must be why US destroyed Libya, which now has open-air slave markets.

  9. Even though homosexuality was frowned upon in most cultures throughout history, homos cannot be seen as a 'victim' group like others.

    The reason for this is there is no autonomous and self-sustaining homo community. A Jewish community can exist on its own and sustain itself as Jewish. Chinese can do the same. Also true of Turks and Iranians. Greek community can create more Greeks via childbirth and culturalization.

    But this isn't true of homos. For starters, homosexuality cannot create life. No matter how many guys hump other guys in the bung, no life will be created. No life was ever created by lesbians rubbing poons together. So, homos, every single one of them, are the products of real sex by real-sexuals, aka heterosexuals.
    So, homos on their own cannot sustain homo community.

    Also, it's impossible to tell where the next homo will come from. Even if a homo man and a homo woman have reluctant sex together, the chances are their kid will be straight than homo. But then, a very masculine straight man and very feminine straight woman can have sex together and produce a homo kid.

    Unlike other groups that are self-sustaining and auto-generating, homos can't predict where the next homo will arise. An Amish community can keep producing new Amish. But even in an all-homo community where homo men have reluctant sex with homo women, the chances are their kids will be straight than homo.

    Because we don't know where the next homo will come from, homos have been born into every group. So, some homos were born into a slave family. But other homos were born into slave-owning family. Some homos were born white, some were born black, some were born Asian, some were born Hindu, etc. Some homos were born to kings and grew up as privileged princes who exploited serfs and poor folks. Aristocratic homos sexually exploited their servants. Even though Nazi Germany was anti-homo, some homos were born into Nazi families, and if Nazi Germany had survived, these elite closet-homos would have oppressed and killed Polacks.

    Because of the quantum nature of homo-ness, the homo community is very unstable. It never knows where the next homo will be born and to whom. We know that many Jews will be born in Israel to Jewish parents. But we don't know which parents will give birth to the new batch of homos. A homo may be born to two extremely religious parents who believe homosexuality is a great sin. A homo may be born to capitalists or socialists. A homo may be born to Tibetan Buddhists or Saudi Muslims.

    This is why homos are drawn to globalism. Because each homo is born in isolation and without intention(on part of parents), he or she must look far and wide to construct and be part of a homo community. A homo community is not self-generating but exists only by pulling together isolated homos from all over the nation or the world. So, homos have been adept at creating networks, and that led to worldwide power.

  10. Please learn to revise. Your writing, uh, suuucks.