WARNING: DISTURBING AND EXPLICIT CONTENT TO FOLLOW. Last week’s discussions on abuse prompted me to go back and review many writings I published in the pre-MeToo era. I was consistent about producing “antigay” content only to the extent that I was critical of the gay community’s treatment of abuse. This, Chapter 26 of Jephthah’s Daughters, is a very good example.
Robert Oscar Lopez
I seem to have caused some waves. Two articles of mine came out back to back on American Thinker. The first was called “Christian Brotherhood an Impeachable Offense; Gay Incest Celebrated.” Here is the part that may have riled people:
Just in the last week, in the latest blitz of gay über alles, at the provocation of groups like GLAAD and Right Wing Watch, a newspaperman was sacked in Iowa and an entire show on HGTV was canceled because of editors and two handsome blond brothers (the Benhams) adhering to the millennia-old strictures about chastity. […] If you are a pair of good-looking brothers dedicating your life to building homes for the poor, but you criticize homosexuality, you must be stripped of your life’s work and publicly humiliated. But if you are a pair of good-looking brothers who decide to have unprotected anal sex with each other in front of the camera, the gay community will shower you with praise. Think I’m kidding? On February 5, 2014, in the very mainstream gay publication Queerty, an article ran celebrating the marvelous fad of “twincest” in the gay community, or anal sex between brothers who, according to Queerty, can enjoy hot sodomy without having to worry about genetic defects, since they cannot get accidentally pregnant and would end up buying another woman’s eggs to make children anyway.[…] Queerty’s paragons of twincest are two Brazilian brothers and two Czech brothers who made international headlines by declaring their sexual love for each other. This isn’t hypothetical; gay pornographers were sure to capture both sets of brothers in flagrante delicto, and the photographic images have been published for all the world to see. […] The fact that Brazil and the Czech Republic are both target countries for exploitative pornographers, due to the countries’ high supply of, respectively, bronzed and blond young men kept thin by poverty and desperate for work, does not diminish at all from the prurient thrill that gay men get by watching barely legal identical twins sodomize each other.[i]
The other article was called “Gays Gone Wild.”
Judging from the number of hits English Manif got in the 72 hours following publication, it is safe to say that both posts provoked some strong reactions. Some have asked me why I seemed to “go nuclear,” carpet-bombing American Thinker readers with back-to-back articles offering inflammatory topics.
Just in case Queerty takes down some of its posts about the Czech brothers, here is an excerpt of what ran on the site:
We’ve covered Elijah and Milo Peters — the Bel Ami porn twins — before. They are the 19-year-old hard bodied Czechs who don’t just have oral and bareback anal sex on camera; they claim to be real-life lovers, having started their phyiscal [sic] relationship when they were 15. But now their porn stardom means even their parents have found out (they weren’t pleased) and mainstream outlets like Salon are covering the rise of twincest. (The Peters Twins are being joined in what’s likely to be a burgeoning porn market.) But while human beings, straight or gay, have always found twins hot, actually seeing two brothers ejaculate on each other’s faces, and then kiss, is something else entirely. So what makes twincest not just increasingly less taboo, but also so hot to so many?[ii]
Queerty is no more fringe as a media outlet than HGTV is. The fact that Queerty ran not one but several articles glorifying gay sex between brothers in explicit terms, including the reference to licking semen off each other’s faces, deserves scrutiny and investigation. Why did sites like GLAAD and HRC not comment on Queerty’s statements? Do they not think it is appropriate to “hold accountable” journalists who make statements that endanger the safety of homosexual youth?
I would ask people to examine the statistics on childhood molestation, in order to grasp how grave Queerty‘s statements were. The figures are hotly contested and vary wildly. Richard Wolitski, Ron Stall, and Ron Valdiserri published a book in 2008, entitled Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States. The book’s provocative claim was that studies indicate a higher percentage of gay and bisexual men reporting that they were sexually abused as minors.[iii] When conservative groups such as Focus on the Family rushed to cite these data and declare that homosexuality was caused by childhood sexual abuse, the authors of the study were understandably upset and cautioned the public not to infer causation from correlation. While it is possible that some men develop homosexual tendencies as a result of sexual abuse, it is also possible that abusers target young males who are already discovering that they are gay.
The causation of homosexuality is not a question that I will ever be equipped to answer, but the data still stand: queer men are more vulnerable to being sexually abused, especially in the tender transition from boyhood to manhood. If you are interested in protecting the welfare of teens who are going to be gay, you need to take child molestation seriously.
Accessibility is key in sexual abuse. Which males are most likely to have regular access to a vulnerable boy? The most likely culprits will be people who live in his home and can pass in and out of the boy’s private spaces easily and regularly, particularly to build up trust. This group would include family members, especially fathers, uncles, and brothers.
It is child endangerment to romanticize and glorify men who ejaculate on their brothers’ faces and stick their penises inside them, with or without a condom (though barebacking combined with incest is particularly toxic). In case you think Queerty‘s comment on the Peters brothers was an isolated story, think again. Here is an excerpt from another piece in 2010 that discussed sex between brothers:
Elijah and Milo Peters (pictured, right), the gay identical twin porn stars, crossed a barrier this year that shocked even the gay porn industry: They had sex with each other on camera. (Yes, bareback.) The pair, who claim to be in a romantic relationship with each other, have previously shot scenes together with other performers, occasionally kissing each other while being serviced by another, but what they do on the Bel Ami DVD Taboo takes things about two thousand steps further. But that is porn, after all, and anything goes, right? Enter Bruce Weber, the famed Abercrombie & Fitch photographer […] The Carlson twins (pictured, right), also subjects of Weber, were arguably America’s first breakout identical twin male models, and they have appeared very cozy with each other in many photos before, in various states of undress (including zero clothes). […] twincest — no matter how politically incorrect — sells.[iv]
One of the main reasons for this renewed interest in incest has to do with the debate over gay marriage and gay adoption.
Proponents of same-sex marriage have fought to elevate sexual relationships between people who can never procreate. They have also sought to institutionalize parent-child relationships between people who are not blood relatives. With these arrangements celebrated and cast as not only normal but rather beneficial for society, a central motive for incest prohibitions disappears. There is no risk of genetic defects between brothers who have sex with each other—if they wish to be a gay couple and have children, they will have to get eggs from a woman outside their pairing anyway. Moreover, if a gay male couple adopts a boy, at least one of the adoptive fathers is not a blood relative. Even if one of the adoptive fathers is a blood relative, if he has anal sex with his adopted son, there is no risk of a genetic defect.
As Queerty reminds us, incest is hot. The boom in brother pornography begs the question: Why do we oppose incest anyway? If there is no chance of siring a genetically deformed child, is our repugnance toward sex between relatives based on anything substantial, at least according to the postmodern, post-gay-marriage mindset? The eroticizing of brothers having sex is dangerous enough, because an older and more muscular brother might assume prematurely that his younger brother is gay—and act on this assumption. The older or stronger brother might be aggressive, thinking his flirtatious horseplay is leading toward a consensual act of pleasure rather than a coercive act of abuse.
But then we must add into this equation the problem of precedent-setting. If we banalize sex between brothers, then what claim do we have to prevent sex between uncles and nephews, foster fathers and adoptees, and eventually, fathers and sons? If it is pleasurable and if the boy is already a teenager, even just past the legal age of consent, there is the prospect of sexual thrill with no worries about genetically defective offspring.
Can we really hold off gay incest for very long? The reasoning is already being expressed and elaborated in mainstream gay publications. The counterpoints against incest become strained and confused. People who oppose genetically “safe” incest can often only fall back on traditional distaste. The entire gay marriage debate has taught us, if anything, that traditional distastes are bad if they have no scientific basis.
If one day we find ourselves in a world where homosexual incest is banalized, will heterosexual incest maintain its special taboo status? In a world where people can take birth control or get abortions, how long must we wait before all people, taking their cues from the gay vanguard, decide that nothing outside of genetics bars incest, and, as long as no pregnancy results and gets carried to term, anything goes?
Titillation within the domestic sphere does not bode well for children placed in gay homes. Gay males are being fed a steady diet of messages that could easily persuade them that a teenager in their care wants sexual contact, or if they have two teenagers in their care, that they want to have sexual contact with each other. Often the person being sexually touched or coaxed into erotic activity does not know how to say “no” in such a context, since these are people whom they have come to love and look up to. Lesbians, while less likely to do the molestation themselves, are more likely than other households to have gay male friends coming around the house. These characters will bring the same hypersexualized and boundary-trampling mentality with them, into a sphere that’s very vulnerable.
Keep in mind that these articles have hung out online for four years without being condemned, denounced, or petitioned by gay rights organizations. Contrast this with the swiftness of GLAAD, Right Wing Watch, HRC, and the Southern Poverty Law Center condemning supposed homophobia.
[i] Robert Oscar Lopez, “Christian Brotherhood an Impeachable Offense; Gay Incest Celebrated,” American Thinker (May 11, 2014) www.americanthinker.com (Accessed January 9, 2015).
[ii] Editor, “The 4 Reasons You’ve Gotten over Twincest (And Started Thinking It’s Hot)”, Queerty (May 21, 2010) www.queerty.com (Accessed January 9, 2015).
[iii] Richard J. Wolitski, Ronald O. Valdiserri, and Ron Stall, eds., Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
[iv] Editor, “Bruce Weber Shot the Hortoneda Twins In Some Twincestuous Poses. Haven’t We Seen This Before?”, Queerty (January 30, 2010) www.queerty.com (Accessed January 9, 2015).