Bill Weintraub

Analist eunuch whores

12-10=2005

On December 6, 2005, the New York Times carried a big article about AIDS in India.

It's not a good article and I don't recommend it.

There are too many questions left unasked -- and unanswered.

But it did talk about effeminized eunuch prostitutes who engage in anal "sex" for money.

Indeed, following the old news adage "if it bleeds it leads," the Times put the eunuchs, redolent of the exotic if backwards East, at the head of the story.

Followed by men who wear saris.

Like I say, it was not a well-researched piece.

No proof was offered, for example, that these individuals were indeed eunuchs.

And absent that proof, there's no reason to believe that the self-proclaimed eunuchs weren't simply male transvestite prostitutes.

Nor did the Times inquire as to how, if they were eunuchs, they'd become eunuchs.

Yet, in an era in which empowerment and HIV prevention are much discussed and linked, that's a very important question.

Were the eunuchs castrated by their parents and sold into prostitution?

Or did they elect to be castrated?

And then choose to be prostitutes.

Because in the latter sense, we have eunuchs right here in America.

Of course they're not called "eunuchs" -- heaven forfend!

We're more advanced than that in America.

No, they're called "transgendered," and they're an honored part of our great big happy and all-inclusive LGBT community.

Of course there are some similarities:

Eunuchs are castrated.

And so are the transgendered.

Eunuchs wear women's clothes (sometimes).

And so do the transgendered.

Eunuchs are prostitutes (sometimes).

And so are some of the transgendered.

But of course I wouldn't want to suggest that American TransGenders are the same as Indian Eunuchs.

Or that folks here in the US of A were lopping off guys' balls because they couldn't come to terms with their homosexuality.

That's something they only do in places like India and Iran.

In any case, in an excess of political correctness, the Times referred throughout the article to the eunuchs as "women":

"Her dress, her clients, her customers," etc.

Problem: a eunuch is not a woman.

A eunuch is a castrated male.

He lacks, at the least, his testicles; but genetically he's still male.

And historically, eunuchs, particularly those in positions of power, were referred to as "he."

Not "she."

Like I say, I wonder who castrated the men in the story.

And so should have the Times.

Looking at the story, then, and considering the rather glaring omissions, I think that for the Times, the eunuchs were, in effect, stand-ins and code for "effeminate, anally-receptive homosexuals."

Which is interesting.

Because it means that a mere four years after its first mention of anal (in an article about SF safer-sex counselor Seth "Twilightchild" Watkins, who had one of those Andrew-Sullivan-moments and seroconverted), the Times has come round to saying that effeminate men -- in this case, eunuchs and guys who wear saris -- are at risk for HIV.

No kidding.

But when we men of the Alliance say that effeminacy facilitates anal -- which leads to HIV and a host of other ills -- we're evil.

While barebackin buttboyz like Sullivan and Seth are good.

I don't think so.

We're telling the truth.

Anal kills.

Effeminacy kills.

And promiscuity and prostitution -- which amount to the same thing -- aren't a good idea either.

There I go again.

Bad Bill.

Saying that gay male promiscuity is akin to female prostitution.

Yet gay men recognize that fact.

They refer to themselves as "sluts" and "whores."

Does that mean they're having sex for money?

Not necessarily.

Mart Finn has written of the "transactional" nature of anal penetration among gay men.

"Transactional sex" is a sociological term meaning sex for money, goods or favors.

But, says Mart:

In my work I do not associate any exchange of money or goods for sex when I talk about the experience being a 'transactional' one. By transactional I mean a kind of sex, whether it be casual or in a relationship, where one party or usually both are psychically distanced from each other. They are 'doing sex together' ... for themselves.

The concept is inextricably linked to the commercialisation of gay male attitudes to sex and often life. Sex is just another activity. To be compared and evaluated against previous experience and those of our peers and dominant subcultural norms. If our expectations and an ideosyncratic paradigm of desires are fixed as we engage, embrace ... come to our lovers, then we are asking them to fulfill something for US. We fully intend reciprocity ... if they can stimulate it from us.

I understand what the anthropologists are on about ... transactional ... indicates money goods or favours. Yet we know there are many other forms of transaction which are not so overt ... the motivation of modern western men and women when they engage in sex can be one of them.

So gay men, most of whom are at least part of the time anally "receptive," and who have a large number of partners -- what the sociologists call multipartnering and what the rest of us call promiscuity -- think of themselves as involved in transactional sex.

Psychologically, they're whores.

On a par with men in India who claim to be eunuchs, refer to themselves as "she" and "her," and earn their living through being anally "receptive."

Here's the truth:

Anal penetration = psychic castration.

And psychic castration aka effeminacy leads directly back to anal penetration.

It's that APE culture -- Anal, Promiscuity, and Effeminacy -- which leads to RAPE culture:

Now, assuming the men in India had been castrated as children, rather than having had an elective procedure as adults, the difference between the Indian eunuchs and the American gay men is that, under analist pressure, the gay men have CHOSEN anal and with it psychic castration.

Castration: the loss of manhood.

Gay men are eunuchs for analism.

And analism makes eunuchs of gay men.

How?

By giving bathhouse tours for virgins and telling them to get on their knees and have some fun and making big budget movies about buttfucking cowboys and in a zillion other ways.

It's horrible.

And it's your world.

I keep telling you we could change that world, but given the buttboyz to the left of us and the religious whackos to our right, the only way to do it means parting with some money.

And that you won't do.

Reality: when you won't defend yourself, you consent to your own castration.

And become just another gay male eunuch.

SAVE YOUR BALLS

SAVE YOUR LIFE

---