It's interesting how working in porn is now considered a "career."

Before you know it, it'll be a profession.

There'll be schools and graduate programs and so forth.

Sorta like "safer sex educator."

But, and getting back to Boham, what struck me was this bizarre sentence:

"Although the films were gay Boham is straight."

What does that mean?

Can anyone tell me?

Boham, who's 25, made four of these films.

And no matter what position he played, as it were, in a movie like "Little Big League" -- he had sex with guys.

On camera.

So we can't really say "Boham is straight."

He's bi -- just like everyone else.

He may well identify as straight.

He may even have a pregnant girlfriend -- whom he impregnated.

But he's not "straight."

So why did 365Gay say that he is?

Because to the gay establishment, the world is divided into two discrete categories, gay and straight, which never cross or mingle.

Now, what's important to understand is that these categories of so-called sexual orientation are a crucial part of heterosexualization -- and of gender theory.

We've discussed heterosexualization before.

And remember what my foreign friend said, in the course of that discussion, regarding heterosexualization, sexual orientation, and the gay community:

Gay males are among the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated / negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Right.

So the oppression and suppression of mainstream -- that is, non-ghettoized -- male-male love and affection by our heterosexualized society produces "the mutilated / negativised remnants of male-male sex" which we see in porn films like those in which Mr Boham appeared.

The heterosexualization which produces these films, as well as the films themselves, are de facto supported by the gay establishment and certainly supported by the vast majority of gay males.

Interestingly, gay males and the gay establishment also strongly support gender theory.

So let's focus on gender theory.

According to gender theory, there are five variables which apply when we look at sex and gender:

1. Biological sex -- which the genderists reduce to sperm or egg.

2. Assigned gender identity

3. Core gender identity

4. Sexual orientation

5. Sex acts

In the case of Mr Boham, the genderists would say that his biological sex is male; that because he was born in the West, he was assigned a male gender identity at birth -- which may or may not accord with his "true" or "core" gender identity; that his sexual orientation is "straight"; but that he occasionally engages in "gay" sex acts.

Does any of that make sense?

Not to me.

It only makes sense if you assume -- and it's a very great assumption -- that core gender identity exists in each and every human being born on the face of this earth as an entity totally and completely separate from biological sex -- which for the vast majority of the world's population, is determined not just at birth by the genitalia --

but before birth chomosomally.

Is there any evidence that throughout the human race "core gender identity" exists independent of biological sex?

No.

There are people who claim that their gender identity is out of sync with their biological sex.

And if they're persuasive enough, there are doctors who will diagnose them as having a "gender identity disorder" and authorize some form of "transition" to the other biological sex.

These people are however anomalies.

Their numbers are tiny.

And the fact that they believe something is so, of course, does not make it so.

We really don't know what's going on with these people.

What we do know is that their disorder -- which is what it is -- is being used by gender feminist and gay ideologues to call into question the identification of sex with genitalia.

That's what's being done.

Why is it being done?

Because it's considered politically useful.

Primarily because it strengthens the notion of "sexual minorities."

Whose self-styled representatives then become a political force and can demand a piece of the political pie -- for themselves and their various establishments and functionaries.

But according to the news article, Mr Boham is NOT a member of a sexual minority.

He is rather, "straight."

Now, let me explain how this plays out.

Mr Boham, we may assume, was born with male genitalia, and so he was assigned a male gender identity by his parents and the doctors etc when he was born.

Under the genderist categories, Mr Boham is regarded as "heterosexual."

When he has sex with his girlfriend, it's "heterosex."

But -- let's suppose for a moment that in the midst of all his other storm and strife, Mr Boham decides that he's actually a woman in a man's body.

(This, dear reader, is not far-fetched.

According to Michael Musto, the entertainment / gossip columnist for the Village Voice, a gay male porn star decided just that not too long ago and had gender reassignment surgery.

In the course of which, his no doubt porn-perfect-penis was converted to a vagina.

Which Mr Musto -- tongue firmly in cheek? -- insists must be a very large vagina indeed.)

So, let us again, for the sake of argument, suppose that Mr Boham decides that he's actually a woman in a man's body.

At that point, given that he's sleeping with a woman, his sexual orientation becomes "gay" -- or lesbian.

The story said that "Kelso had asked [Boham] to go into the bedroom to cuddle."

Could not Mr Boham -- should he decide that he's really Ms Boham -- claim then that she feared she was going to be raped -- and killed Mr Kelso in self-defense?

Yes -- she could.

Bottom, as it were, line:

Gender theory and support for the transgendered is being used by the gay male community to prop up analism.

Because after all, and as we saw in Buttholes on Parade, if sex is independent of the genitals, you can treat the anus as a vagina -- and claim that what you're doing is "sex."

But it isn't.

In short, gender theory, which is based on a relative handful of anomalous cases, is being used to stand the world on its head.

And to further the feminist attack on Masculinity.

It's claimed by the genderists by the way, that the transgendered have existed throughout history.

We have no way of knowing if that's true.

But let's pretend for a moment and for example, that the mythical Greek seer Teiresias was "transgendered."

He wasn't, but let's pretend he was.

Did the Greeks use the myth of Teiresias -- who because of a problem with some magical mating snakes (I know -- it sounds like something the Latter Day Saints would dream up, but the Greeks got there first) -- spent part of his life as a man and part as a woman -- and then the rest as a man again --

Did the Greeks use the Teiresias myth to attack Manhood and weaken Masculinity?

NO.

They understood that Manhood was crucial to Man.

And that Teiresias was an abnormality and a curiousity.

Indeed, that was the whole point.

That he was NOT part of the norm.

Yet under pressure from the gay male community, and supported by the gender feminists, our society by contrast is using the putative though minimal existence of the transgendered as a way of undermining traditional conceptions of Masculinity and Manhood.

In fact, what the genderists are doing with "gender identity disorder" is exactly what Freud and the neo-Freudians did with "neurosis":

Freud and his followers "psychoanalyzed" people who were "mentally ill" and claimed that

1. they could discern a developmental model among these people; and

2. the model applied to ALL human beings.

That Freudian model, which remember was based on people who were at the least maladapted, became the norm, and in turn had an enormous impact on the first seven decades of the 20th century.

And it was particularly destructive, as Stephanie Coontz pointed out in the NY Times, towards men who loved men and women who loved women.

To repeat: Neo-Freudianism was very powerful and very destructive.

Yet -- when was the last time you heard the word "neurotic" used in a psychiatric diagnosis?

In America at least, the idea of "neurosis," along with the Freudian notion of "stages of psychosexual development," has by and large disappeared.

As will the idea of gender identity disorder.

But the damage will have been done.

Now:

In Buttholes on Parade, I mentioned a piece in the NY Times discussing the "free to be" movement among parents who have "gender variant" kids.

The idea is that instead of forcing these kids into a male or female mold, they be allowed to be "free to be" whatever sex they want to be.

And the Times piece has a number of accounts from parents about how difficult it is dealing with a "gender variant" child.

Gee, you might say, how could anyone be so stony-hearted as to listen to these stories and not care about these kids and their parents;

and not give them permission to be "free to be?"

But -- the question must be asked -- what about the rest of society?

It's one thing to say that kids who have developmental problems should be cut some slack.

But it's quite another to say, as do the transgendered, that because they suffer from a gender identity disorder, so does everyone else, and that American culture has a "misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one's gender identity."

Is that true?

Is our identification of the genitals with sex -- misguided?

No.

It is not misguided.

The so-called fixation on the genitals is there because

1. it accords with reality; and

2. it's stood the test of time.

The vast majority of people born with male genitals want to be Men.

And the vast majority of people born with female genitals want to be Women.

That's the way it's always been, and the way it continues to be.

Further, although we may want to cut gender-confused kids -- and their parents -- some slack, no one really knows whether it's good for the kids to do that.

The Times:

Studies suggest that most boys with gender variance early in childhood grow up to be gay, and about a quarter heterosexual, Dr. Menvielle said. Only a small fraction grow up to identify as transgender.

Girls with gender-variant behavior, who have been studied less, voice extreme unhappiness about being a girl and talk about wanting to have male anatomy. But research has thus far suggested that most wind up as heterosexual women.

[emphases mine]

So:

In the case both of boys and girls "with gender variance early in childhood," "only a small fraction" of the boys "grow up to identify as transgender"; and as to the girls, "most wind up as heterosexual women."

Yet the Times and much of the rest of the popular press is presenting these kids as having a problem which cannot and will not self-correct.

That's deeply misleading.

If the vast majority of kids "with gender variance early in childhood" do not elect to change their sex as adults -- maybe they'd be a lot better off if they were raised within traditional sexual boundaries.

In the meantime, like I said, vast damage is done to society and to males in particular.

When an alleged transgender female is allowed to run for Prom King -- because if she isn't the school board and school district will get sued -- her fellow students not surprisingly get confused about masculinity and femininity.

"Dudes are chicks and chicks are dudes."

But they're not.

Notice by the way how, in those two paragraphs I just cited, the Times manages to create three sexes:

heterosexual men

heterosexual women

gay men

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler -- and a lot closer to the truth -- to say that there are just two sexes:

Male and Female.

And that the vast majority of people are

1. Happy to be the sex they are; and

2. Bisexual.

That is, again, a lot simpler than creating, for the sake of the alleged transgendered and other "sexual minorities," separate and discrete categories of straight men, straight women, gay men, gay women, bi men, bi women, men who want to be women, women who want to be men, folks who want to be both, folks who don't want to be either --

and who knows all what else.

In the message thread titled bludgeoned, Redd said:

... the imposing dominance of theory on culture is profound.

Theory today, coming from the humanities in academia, ignores biology and science generally. Theorists often focus on post-structuralism introduced in the late 1960s by French post-structuralist Jacques Derrida who introduced deconstruction. Basically, deconstruction claims that God is dead, hence, so is the author of literature, as Roland Barthes purported. Nothing is stable, especially knowledge.

Theorists focused on language without considering science, the more stable form of human knowledge. A form of science coined "homosexual" in 1869, but during the time man2man that was natural, meaning masculine, wasn't questioned, wasn't suspect because it was man; it was communal. Men who attempted to be feminine led to the term "homosexual."

...

Now if we notice what heterosexualization has done to communal relationships, we would see, as Bill and others have noted (see The Power of the Masculine), that theorists have created a culture that is not scientifically sound.

Terms like "hyper-masculine" are theoretical. "Hyper-masculine" assumes that some part of masculinity is feminine and that man's natural aggression is "hyper." If you notice, many little boys' natural aggression is dubbed "hyper"--e.g., "hyperactive"--and the little boys are often drugged to quell their natural expression of masculinity. Heterosexualization attempts to control natural male aggression early in a man's life when he's a boy.

Terms like "hyper-masculine" impose a cultural paradigm wherein masculinity is understood from the feminine, not from the masculine. "Gay" as analists promote and define it is effeminate. Analists are men who think that they have a "sexual orientation" that makes them effeminate. They attempt to ground "sexual orientation" in science, when "sexual orientation" is a cultural term, not a scientific one.

Man is Man. He ain't got no feminine in him. His glory is his masculinity, just as women's glory is their femininity. Man is whole; woman is whole.

Bill makes another profound point: heterosexuality is the oddity. Forcing men and women to interact has created problems, I think, with abuse of all sort. The operative word in that last sentence is "forcing." Of course, I don't mean that men and women aren't attracted to each other because they are. But they can be and are attracted to each other without being forced to socialize.

In short, a lot of what we "know" about society are cultural creations. Man, masculinity, manhood, etc. isn't a cultural creation. Woman isn't a cultural creation. Man is man; woman is woman. He ain't no woman; she ain't no man. Man is whole and woman is whole. Manhood is divine; womanhood is divine.

Culture has separated man from himself by telling him that he has a feminine aspect, a feminine gene. Rather than recognizing that man2man is man, not feminine.

Redd is correct:

"Man is man; woman is woman. He ain't no woman; she ain't no man. Man is whole and woman is whole. Manhood is divine; womanhood is divine."

And

"Man2Man is Man."

And if we conceptualize it that way, we can clear up the silliness with our straight gay porn star by saying -- he's a Man.

Who, like millions of other men, has had sex with those of his own sex.

And since, it would appear, he's headed to prison, no doubt will again.

But -- that doesn't mean the sex he's going to have there will be "situational."

It wasn't "situational" when he made those movies, and it won't be "situational" in jail or any other place he does it.

He'll be doing it because he's a Man and attracted to and capable of sex with other Men.

Yet:

A few days ago, a judge in Australia denied a Pakistani man who claimed to be bisexual political asylum; because the Pakistani said that the first time he'd had sex with another man had been in prison.

The judge asserted that the man was NOT bisexual, saying that his forays into same-sex sex were purely a result of his incarceration.

Here's a bit of the story:

Outrage Over Australian Ruling Man Not Really Bisexual

by 365Gay dot com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 9, 2007

(Sydney, Australia) LGBT civil rights groups are protesting a refugee tribunal ruling that a Pakistani man who identifies as bisexual would not face discrimination if returned to his homeland because he is not really bisexual and only functioned as bi because of his incarceration while awaiting a hearing.

The tribunal also refuted a claim by Ali Humayun that he and his same-sex partner had discussed registering as domestic partners or having a civil union or marriage.

"The applicant was not in fact bisexual," the ruling by Giles Short, the Refugee Review Tribunal member who made the decision, wrote in his verdict.

Short went on to say that the man's relationship "was simply the product of the situation where only partners of the same sex were available and said nothing about his sexual orientation."

[emphasis mine]

Notice that the judge makes reference to "the *situation* where only partners of the same sex were available..."

The piece of sociological silliness behind that remark is called "situational homosexuality," and was much beloved by pyschoanalytic and other theorists in the 1950s and 60s, who used it to "explain" how it was that "heterosexual" men, who unlike "homosexuals," were clearly NOT mentally ill, might still be capable of having sex with other men in a same-sex envivonment like prison.

I've discussed "situational homosexuality" in several message threads, including Masculine Sex; and Tiny and Stable

Here's what I said in Tiny and Stable:

SITUATIONAL HOMOSEXUALITY

The theory of situational homosexuality, also known as opportunistic homosexuality, was that

1. Straight males (and to a degree hetero women) in a same-sex environment would have sex with each other "faut de mieux" -- for lack of anything better; and that

2. as soon as they were in the presence of the opposite sex, they would revert to EXCLUSIVELY hetero behavior.

So: the idea was that guys in the military, in prison, Boy Scouts, monks, etc. would have sex with each other because there were no women around.

Does that idea make any sense at all?

No.

It does not.

Why not?

Because human beings are sexually dimorphic.

That means that there are, from a human point of view, large and very striking physical differences between the sexes.

Like I say, from a human point of view.

Perhaps to a grizzly bear, we all look alike -- though I doubt it.

But NOT TO EACH OTHER.

Does anyone really think that a male soldier with a hard-on is confusing the guy in the next bunk with a woman?

He's not.

Because it's not possible.

The guy in the next bunk doesn't look like a woman, or smell like a woman, or -- in all likelihood -- act like a woman.

He's a guy.

He has narrow hips, broad shoulders, a deep voice, an Adam's apple, no breasts, and external genitalia.

And the other guy knows it.

To understand this better, let's look at two sets of two males engaged in homosex in the heydey of situationalism -- the 1950s.

Set #1 consists of two rough and tough prison inmates who've spent the day on the chain gang bustin rocks and who go back to their cell to get their rocks off with each other.

Set #2 consists of two nelly New York queens who work as window dressers (it's the 50s remember) and who go back to their apartment to get their rocks off with each other.

According to the theory, these two sets of men were totally unalike.

In point of fact, however, that's not true.

In both cases -- the hardened criminals and the tender queens -- the men were getting aroused by each other and achieving orgasm with each other.

Even as a callow and cowed youth, thoroughly taken in by the neo-Freudians, that similarity bothered me and rattled around my brain.

Because: if all four guys were getting hard and getting off with each other -- wasn't that a rather striking commonality?

Yes, Bill, it was and is.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time on a chair across from your dozing psychiatrist if you'd trusted your intellect and your instincts.

So: the theory of the day -- and I might as well have fun with my adolescent fantasies -- was that if you took Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris and caged them up with each other for a sufficient length of time, they might have sex.

But that if one day you tossed Marilyn Monroe into the cage -- they'd instantly drop HIM for HER.

Is that so?

Not necessarily.

They might for example have chosen to double-dick her -- what now is called co-ramming -- two dicks in one vagina.

That's a very common male fantasy.

Which enables the guys to have cock2cock contact in a hetero setting.

And in point of fact what we now know and recognize is that guys released from same-sex environments such as prison will very often continue to have sex with other males even when re-united with and having an active sex life with women.

EVEN THOUGH THAT SAME-SEX SEX IS THOROUGHLY AND UTTERLY DENIGRATED BY THEIR CULTURE.

Fact: the theory of situational homosexuality is utter bunk and pure hokum.

Guys have sex with guys.

In all-male environments.

And in mixed environments.

The theory of situational homosexuality was useful to people in the 50s because it maintained the line between "homo" and "hetero" even when the line had disappeared.

As it did in prison and the military and so forth.

But the theory itself was dopey.

Dumb.

What it really did was enable folks to ignore, as Orwell says, what was in front of their noses.

Which is exactly what the judge in Australia is doing -- in this Year of Our Lord 2007:

Of Humayun's sworn testimony before the tribunal that he was in a committed relationship, [Judge] Short said it was nothing more than "a contrived attempt to make their relationship appear more serious".

Humayun appealed the ruling to the Federal Magistrates Court which upheld Short's findings.

Meanwhile, Humayun's partner has been granted refugee status.

Humayun, however remains detained in an immigration center where he is the only LGBT person. He now identifies as being gay.

He tells the Sydney Morning Herald that he is persecuted daily by fellow detainees and fears the situation will become worse when he is deported to Pakistan.

"I'm worried for my life if I am deported home," he said. "The men in my family, they are really fundamentalist types. Muslims. My lifestyle is totally in contrast to what they believe."

Under Pakistan's civil law homosexuality is illegal and subject to imprisonment with terms ranging up to life. In areas where Sharia or Islamic law is observed in the country gays can face 100 lashes or death by stoning.

Fortunately, Mr Boham, our gay straight porn star, isn't living under Islamic law.

Let's hope Mr Humayun won't be either.

So: Both Mr Boham and Mr Humayun had sex with at least one other man.

Mr Boham claims that he's straight.

Mr Humayan, it would appear, used to say that he's bi, but now claims that he's gay.

Seems silly doesn't it?

In both cases, of course, the men are under some degree of duress from the law.

Mr Boham is accused of and apparently has admitted to murder.

While Mr Humayan is accused of the surely lesser crime of situational homosexuality.

In both cases, however, what they're accused of could turn out to be a capital offense.

Mr Boham might be executed for killing Mr Kelso.

And Mr Humayan might be executed for having sex with a man.

So their legal problems, which are not insignificant, may be coloring the way they present themselves to the world.

Nevertheless, at a certain point -- and we're way past it -- the whole thing becomes thoroughly goofy.

Mr Boham isn't straight -- he's a Man.

Mr Humayan isn't gay -- he too is a Man.

And that's really all we need say and they need say about who and what they are.

So: We solve the strange case of the gay straight porn star by pointing out that he's neither gay nor straight -- nor strange.

He's a Man.

Men have sex with Men.

Always have.

Always will.

Who knows what role these societal confusions about gay and straight played in Mr Boham's decision first off to "act," under the rubric of straight, in gay porn; and then to kill Mr Kelso?

Some role, I daresay -- and more than a little.

The gay-straight divide, which is a false creation of heterosexualization and which is, predictably, being aided and abetted by the gender feminists, has brought great pain and suffering to the world of Men.

Of whom Mr Boham is one.

As was Mr Kelso.

We here are pledged to restore to Men what is theirs by right of birth:

their Manhood;

and their Natural Love for each other.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.