The National Review 2022: The Conservative Case for State-Mandated Sodomy
Just as we should be dosed-up on oxytocin in order to be sufficiently lubed-up for our sodomization by the Third World’s collective phallus, so, too, must we, men in particular, become “receptive [to] penetrative sex toy use” in order to “challenge straight male homohysteria, transhysteria, and transphobia” according to a recent study entitled “Going in Through the Back Door,” which actually turned out to be a hoax (more on this in a second). Certainly our immigration/refugee policy rams plenty of unwanted objects up our “back-door,” but did you know that, according to the study’s author “M. Smith”:
To date, very little research literature exists concerning receptive penetrative anal eroticism in straight men. Of particular interest are its impacts upon other factors relevant to masculinities, sex roles, and the study of sexualities. Several co-constituted features of masculinity are likely to be relevant to straight-male anal sexuality, including masturbatory play with penetrative sex toys. Specifically, this study seeks to explore, “Do men who report greater comfort with receptive penetrative anal eroticism also report less transphobia, less obedience to masculine gender norms, greater partner sensitivity, and greater awareness about rape?” This study uses semi-structured interviews with thirteen men to explore this question, analyzed with a naturalist and constructivist grounded theory approach in the context of sexualities research and introduces transhysteria as a parallel concept to Anderson’s homohysteria. This analysis recognizes potential socially remedial value for encouraging male anal eroticism with sex toys.
This brilliant piece of satire was actually accepted by the journal Sexuality and Culture, but in a supremely disturbing twist, the mockery is based on legitimate scholarship, proof positive that the Left is itself parodic, and may soon cross the threshold to being beyond parody. I thought “homohysteria” was the fact that “homophobia” (a term coined by Jewish psychologist George Weinberg) carrying a three-year prison sentence in Switzerland, but it’s actually “the fear of being thought homosexual because of behavior that is typically considered gender atypical,” a concept explored by “pro-feminist scholar” Eric Anderson, who “specializes” in “adolescent men’s gender and sexualities” at the University of Winchester, and whose seminal studies include “Relaxing the straight male anus: Decreasing homohysteria around anal eroticism” (February 2017) with Jonathan Branfman and Susan Stiritz, and “Generational Masculinities” (November 2017). “Relaxing the straight male anus”:
Examines the practice and perception of receptive anal eroticism among 170 heterosexual undergraduate men in a US university. We analyze the social stigmas on men’s anal pleasure through the concept of homohysteria, which describes a cultural myth that the wrongdoing of gender casts homosexual suspicion onto heterosexual men. For men’s anal eroticism, this means that only gay, emasculated or gender deviant men are thought to enjoy anal pleasure. We suggest, however, that decreasing homohysteria has begun to erode this cultural ‘ban’ on anal stimulation for straight men. Our data finds self-identified straight university-aged men questioning cultural narratives that conflate anal receptivity with homosexuality and emasculation. We also show that 24 percent of our respondents have, at least once, received anal pleasure. These results suggest that cultural taboos around men’s anal pleasure may be shifting for younger men and the boundaries of straight identity expanding. We call for further research to clarify how anal erotic norms are shifting among men of different racial, geographic, socioeconomic, and age demographics, and to determine how these shifts may foster more pluralistic and inclusive views of gender and sexuality.
Branfman and Stiriz—both Jewish—in addition to working with Anderson (who is not Jewish, but whose wife is), co-published “Teaching Men’s Anal Pleasure: Challenging Gender Norms with ‘Prostage’ Education” in October 2012, which states that:
To help students critique sex/gender norms, sexuality educators should address men's anal pleasure. Men's anal receptivity blurs accepted binaries like male/female, masculine/feminine, and straight/queer. By suppressing men's receptivity, the taboo against men's anal pleasure helps legitimize hegemonic sex/gender beliefs-and the sexism, homophobia, and male dominance they encourage. Conversely, by deconstructing men's anal taboo and creating a new language of anal pleasure-“prostage” (pro-STAHJ)-educators can help students challenge restrictive gender norms.
This is what passes for research in higher education these days. Branfman is a PhD candidate at Ohio State University, whose work “converses with masculinity studies, queer studies, queer of color critique, and Jewish studies.” Branfman, who is homosexual, teaches a course on “toxic masculinity,” which is absolutely sure to take an objective stance on whatever “toxic” by-products of masculinity there might be. Susan Stiritz is the chair of Sexual Health and Education at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Returning to Eric Anderson’s “Generational Masculinities,” we now know, evidently, that:
Whereas I once (2008) theorized that a 'one-time rule of homosexuality' existed for men in the 1980s and 1990s, so that any sexual activity with another male socially coded him as homosexual, a 2017 special edition of the journal Sexualities documents the ways in which heterosexuality is also expanding to include a more expansive set of same-sex sexual behaviours ( McCormack, 2017). Heterosexual men are, for example, engaging in male-male-threesomes ( Scoats, Joseph, & Anderson, 2017), enjoying their own anal eroticism ( Branfman, Stiritz, & Anderson, 2017) and having sexual intercourse with other men without having it question their own sexual identity as straight ( Carrillo & Hoffman, 2017;Savin-Williams, 2017). Thus, it is evident that inclusive masculinities are not just about how males act towards each other, or what artistic, athletic, aesthetic, entertainment, occupational, or other aspects of social life they are culturally permitted or thwarted from engaging with; it is also about what sexual and semi-sexual behaviours they are culturally permitted to engage in.
Similarly, the Jewish Amanda Hoffman and Hector Carillo are seeking to change the definition of “heterosexual” in order to make it more “elastic” and “inclusive” of same-sex desire:
We present findings from interviews with 100 such men, whom we recruited while they were seeking sex with men online, and examine the logics that allow them to maintain an identity as straight. Our sample is somewhat unique in that it included men across a wide age range (from 18 to 70), and also because many of our participants are white adult US men who are married or in stable relationships with women. Based on their patterns of sexual interpretation, we discuss how these men make their same-sex desires and behaviours consistent with a primary self-identification as straight. We argue that, in the process of maintaining identities as straight men, they change the definition of heterosexuality, in effect turning it into a considerably elastic category that is perceived as fully compatible with having and enacting same-sex desires.
Branfman, Stiritz, Hoffman, and Honorary Jew Anderson (who seems to be suffering from Ted Allen Syndrome) join a long list of other Jews who were very prominent in the push for “LGBTQ-AEIOU rights,” also known as the normalization of degeneracy, from Magnus Herschfeld to George Weinberg to Harvey Milk (one of the first openly gay men elected to public office and a noted gay rights activist) to John Singer (who attempted to get the first same-sex marriage license in Seattle in 1971) to Leslea Newman (who wrote Heather Has Two Mommies) to Judith Butler (one of the leading “scholars” of queer and feminist theory) to Edie Windsor (who sued the US government for recognition of her Canadian marriage to Thea Spyer, also Jewish, which resulted in the overturning of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA); she was represented by the Jewish Roberta Kaplan). This is understandable, for as Ofri Ilany informs, “Homosexuality is part of Jewish tradition.” Ilany expands:
Intimate relations between men existed in Jewish communities and apparently were also common. Historian Yaron Ben-Naeh has shown in his research that despite the explicit biblical prohibition, in Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire same-sex relations were rather common. This is indicated by dozens of sources. Moreover, until the modern era, grown men who had a need for the favors of youths did not have a negative image in Jewish society.
Indeed, the National Socialists in Germany charged our old friend Magnus Herschfeld for “bringing the Oriental vice to Germany.” Every day the similarities between Weimar Germany and the modern West become more pronounced. It seems that homosexuality and Judaism are inextricable; a recent study found that only 2.7% of Christians identify as homosexual or bisexual (and this number is buoyed dramatically by the fact that blacks are twice as likely as whites to be homosexual), as opposed to 4.8% of Moslems, 6.2% of non-affiliated persons and atheists, and 8.1% of Jews. According to Jonathan Bronfman, “questions link with ongoing stereotypes that accuse Jews of deviant or deficient masculinity.” Where such a stereotype could possibly have originated from, I cannot guess, but Ofri Ilany has an idea:
Homosexuality is an integral part of the history of the Jewish people and Jewish tradition…Hans-Joachim Schoeps, a Prussian Jewish historian and theologian…was a pioneer of the campaign to cancel the prohibition on homosexuality in Germany [in the 1970s]. Since the prohibition on homosexuality often relied on the prohibition in Leviticus 18, Schoeps wanted to make clear the context in which this prohibition was promulgated. He argued that priestly male sacred prostitutes were common in biblical Israel, as in other Semitic cultures. Schoeps concluded that such sacred prostitutes were active even in the Temple in Jerusalem, based especially on Deuteronomy 23:18, “There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel” – where the Jewish Publication Society translation (and others) uses “sodomite” for the word qadesh, the feminine form of which, qdesha, is a holy prostitute. (German translations use a cognate for “whore”.) Only in the period of Josiah’s reform, when the cults of foreign gods were uprooted, was sacred male prostitution prohibited. And since the cult was so popular among the people, it was necessary to make the prohibition in a particularly stringent way and the cult is now considered an abomination. However, Schoeps stresses that the prohibition in Deuteronomy relates to a pagan cult of this sort, not to the sexual act itself…Jiří Mordecai Langer argued that “brotherly love,” i.e. love of a man for a man, is in fact the deepest basic urge in Judaism, at the basis of the commandment of “love thy fellow man as thyself.”… Like Schoeps after him, Langer concluded that the harsh prohibition of sexual relations between men constitutes proof that the tendency toward it was common among Jews. He also argued that an erotic relationship, which not actualized in the form of intercourse, is what connects yeshiva students to one another and to their rabbi.
Finally, Ilany concludes, “homosexual passion and its realization constitute a layer in Judaism itself. Sodom, after all, is also located in Israel.” Given how much the shabbas goys of mainstream conservative worship at the altar of “Judeo-Christian values” and the state of Israel itself, the only logical conclusion a conservative could reach is that “social injuries to the rectum” are as central to conservatism as the free market, the First Amendment, and AIPAC.