Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Islam’s Nancy Boys: The Psychological Background

The Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels takes a look at “the love that dare not speak its name” as practiced in the Islamic world upon underage boys.

Dancing boy

Islamic suppression of women leads to homosexuality and perversions

By Nicolai Sennels

Real men and real women defend women’s rights and challenge their oppressors. One overlooked aspect of women’s oppression and the accompanying debate is the psychological and sexual consequences for the non-real men — the women’s oppressors.

Here we move into a world of self-inflicted homosexuality and sexual perversions of the worst sort. Read about a reality that the politically correct media, out of respect for Muslims, the readers, and ordinary decency do not report.

Oppression of women, in whatever context it occurs, is not only harmful to women but also to men. Thinking, talking, and acting negatively towards women affects the men’s own psychological relationship with women. This is how the human mind works: If we treat others badly outwardly, we are pushing them away on the inner psychological level and we cut ourselves off from learning from them and enjoying their company.

The path to human immaturity and sexual perversion is paved with oppressed women.

Impure women

If one develops a negative view of women, it also becomes harder to open up to them on the sexual level. Of course it is more difficult to love a person you see as inferior and less “pure” than you would a woman you respect and wish to have the freedom and joy she seeks.

A U.S. military report has revealed some of the consequences of having a low regard for women. Military doctors tell how they had to explain to a local Afghan man how to beget children. When the man heard the explanation, he answered with disgust: “How could one feel desire to be with a woman, whom God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.”

The U.S. military report explains further how “Afghan men struggle with sexual identity.” The report shows that Afghan “men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually.” This is also the case among the Afghan interpreters who frequently infect each other with gonorrhea.

PederastyThe psychological explanations for the widespread and self-inflicted homosexuality among Muslim men are simple and acknowledged: All people have sexual desires. When access to the opposite sex is disturbed (being hindered for religious, cultural, or personal reasons), sexuality seeks other ways to achieve relief.

Here it is obviously important to distinguish between congenital homosexuality and the kind of homosexuality that results from a psychological barrier placed by religion or culture between men and women, which therefore compels one to seek other paths to sexual gratification.

Religions and cultures that prevent men and women from meeting in a natural and free way tend to make people gay, and at worst perverse. The many sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests is another good example.

A study of children’s rights in Pakistan revealed that 95 percent of Pakistani truck drivers have sex with boys during their breaks. The boys are as young as thirteen.

The dancing boys

In many Muslim countries it is tradition — especially on Thursdays, the day before their holy Friday — that men meet and watch young boys who dance in sensual movements. When the show is over, the men often have sex with the boys, which in many cases is actually gang rape.

CNN has created a short (three minutes) documentary on the phenomenon which can be seen here: “Ignored by society, Afghan dancing boys suffer centuries-old tradition”. Transcript from the documentary:
A young boy dances, dressed in women’s clothing. His face lathered in makeup. He is known as a ‘bacha bereesh’, or boy without a beard. Performing for a crowd of Afghan men, a costume known as ‘bacha bazi’, or ‘boy play’. He has bells on his feet, but they might as well be chains because bacha bazi is more than dancing. The boys are lured or snatched from their families and forced to become sex slaves by powerful men.

CNN obtained this video from a pimp who introduced us to two dancers who are now adults. Faraz and Jamil didn’t want their faces shown. They say they are continuously threatened, beaten and raped by men who attend the parties. Both say they were forced into boy play as teenagers. They continue to dance because they say it’s the only thing they know and their only way to make money. For each performance they get about thirty dollars, but the dancing often leads to assault.

Faraz was thirteen when his older neighbor raped him and locked him up as a sex slave for five months. ‘I got used to him’, he says. ‘He would sometimes take me to parties and sometimes other places. I was with him all the time.’ Jamil was a bacha bereesh of a powerful warlord who has since left the country. He says he is now married, but he continues to dance to provide for his younger brothers and sisters. ‘I make them study, I dress them and feed them’, he says, ‘any money I make I spend on my family. I do not want them to be like this — be like me.’

Danish soldiers in Afghanistan have also become familiar with the phenomenon: “And on Thursday some of the Afghan soldiers have sex with the teenage boys and young men who travel with them.”

Perversions

The disruption of natural sexuality will sometimes lead to sexual gratification in other abnormal ways besides homosexuality. According to Google, four out of the top five countries searching for “donkey sex”, “Cow sex”, “child sex” and “rape sex” are Muslim countries. The fifth country is in most cases India, which has a large Muslim minority, and where a very puritanical version of Hinduism is widespread. Fox News is not as politically correct as CNN and especially the BBC, and has written about the phenomenon: “No. 1 Nation in Sexy Web Searches? Call it Pornistan”. You may perform these statistical searches yourself on Google Trends.

U.S. soldiers spend much time looking for terrorists in Islamic countries like Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, but they frequently end up with locals in their binoculars who are practicing an alternative version of the slogan “Make love, not war” — especially with donkeys.

Readers without delicate nerves and with a good sense of humor can have a look here “Iraqi Donkey Fun”, “Religion of Peace: ‘Make love, not war — to your donkey’”, and “U.S. Predator Drone Captures Pakistani Man Having Donkey Sex!”.

Good psychological advice

Some advice from psychology to all of us men is to love women, respect them, appreciate their qualities and protect them. This is the path to true love and to being a psychologically healthy man.

As the musician Sting sings so nice and funky — surrounded by beautiful and happy women: “If you love somebody, set them free!”.


Nicolai Sennels is a psychologist and the author of “Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist’s experiences with the Copenhagen Municipality”.

Previous posts by or about Nicolai Sennels:

2010 Jan 6 The Eternal Victim
  Feb 19 Youths, Crime, and Islam
  Apr 11 The Stigmatization Fallacy
  May 8 Islam Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
  Jul 28 Nicolai Sennels: An Open Letter to David Cameron
  Aug 5 Rape by Proxy
    10 Islam and Inbreeding
  Dec 17 The Connection Between Muslim Inbreeding and Terrorism
2011 Jan 10 The Dhimmification of the Red Cross
    12 Was Muhammad a Gelotophobe?
    26 Food Crises are Caused by Overpopulation
  Feb 10 Send in the Midwives!
    23 Western Quran Schools Are “Terrorist Factories”
  Mar 22 Why Multiculture Will Always Fail
    26 What is Islamization?
  Apr 3 The Psychopath’s Argument: Free Speech Kills People

22 comments:

laine said...

"Religions and cultures that prevent men and women from meeting in a natural and free way tend to make people gay, and at worst perverse. The many sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests is another good example".

Actually, most of the Catholic priests who commit pedophilic acts are gay to begin with but this fact is usually silenced in deference to the gay lobby. Gay men who like young meat search for situations where they have unsupervised access to boys e.g. teaching, coaching sports, boy scouts etc. Even some of the so-called heterosexual incidents can still be a gay priest who happens to have easier access to a girl and for whom a prepubertal girl is sufficiently boy-like. The problem with the Catholic priesthood is that it attracts gays disproportionately, not that it makes sexually frustrated men gay. Those who confine their attentions to young teens instead of children under 12 have a special designation hebephilics and more apolologists for this kind of behavior than pedophiles as though it's a less devastating breach of trust.

Salome said...

Is it just me, or is there a detectable anti-Catholic sub-text in Mr Sennels' work? I note elsewhere that he appears to have fallen for greeny Malthusianism (more than one child is bad for the planet). If it's the case, it's a pity, because it detracts from the excellent work he does on the principal topic.

philip.zhao said...

Now I understand "Scheherazade" !

latté island said...

My take on widespread pedophilia in the Muslim culture is that this was the norm in many ancient cultures, and since that part of the world is stuck in ancient times, they still do what many people did then. To tell them to love and respect women is good advice, but what also needs to happen is for the Muslim culture as a whole to evolve into a modern culture, which is literally impossible, so basically most of these people are doomed.

Lawrence said...

Tagging on to what Laine says.

Separating sexes to avoid physical contact does not make a person Gay.

It does provide an environment whereby the respective sex (moreso for men) seek sexual gratification elsewhere (as in whatever means is at hand, pun intended).

What this environment creates is a scenario wherein certain sexual perversions come to be viewed acceptable and normal. In this case man-boy pedophilia.

In the end, there are only two sexes. Male and female. Gay is something someone identifies themselves with when they prefer the sexual gratification of the same sex. This doesn't make them not-male or not-female. It just means their sexual arousal is opposite the norm of their respective sex.

Some say that Gays are born this way. Maybe so. Problem is that people don't develop their sexual responses until puberty, so there is no way to prove or disprove this theory.

And most young people who identify as being Gay are not fully mature enough to understand what all it means. They may role-play, but it isn't until they are adults that they make their ultimate choices regarding their adult life-style.

Here's the important point in context of this post:

The majority of men in Islamic culture who participate in man-boy pedophilia do not usually try to identify as the opposite sex.

In the end it really is a simple issue:

It is about avoiding defiling themselves with an "unclean" female. Thereby having anal intercourse with another "clean" male of an acceptable age they are not defiled.

To further illustrate the point, look at how Islamic men treat women they do have sex with. It is quite often in an abusive manner, rather than a loving manner.

Lawrence said...

Edit... I said... "Gay is something someone identifies themselves with when they prefer the sexual gratification of the same sex."

Point is that there are people who accept or prefer same-sex gratification, but do not identify as being Gay.

Therefore despite popular thought, being Gay is something a person choses to identify with for any number of reasons, rather than a consequence of birth.

But being Gay isn't the issue here.

The issue is the psychological as well as physical damage that pedophilia does to the children as individuals. And the damage it does to their culture when the become adults and carry on the so-called traditions with the next generations.

Gregory said...

I don't get it. According to islam, homosex is wrong. So, what do these afghani men consider to be 'homo-sex'? Two guys with beards? Two guys without beards? What are their imams teaching them? I heard that at least the taliban were sexually normal in that they prohibited bacha bazi....

Lawrence said...

Homo-sex to them is two adult males doing it, and enjoying it, and making a public point of defying 'traditional' taboos.

See, us Westerners don't get it, as long as they follow their traditions it isn't wrong... (pedophelia, honor murders, treating women as slaves, using children to deliver bombs, gang rape, it's all okay if you follow the prescribed protocols.)

Hesperado said...

While what Sennels describes may pertain to very rural (and mountainously so) tribal Muslims like many Afghanis, Kurds, and others), I take issue with the broader claim being made here that would generalize this particular explanation (which has become so common in the Counterjihad movement, it is virtually an unquestioned mantra) for the pederastic-homosexual element among Muslim men.

I recall a commenter at Jihad Watch who in the span of his comment produced two paragraphs that were mutually inconsistent, and somehow I don't doubt Sennels and all others in the Counterjihad movement who perpetuate this "Muslim men tend to be homosexual because their religion restricts them access, and also causes them to be averse, to women" trope or meme, would be similarly inconsistent.

The two paraphgraphs written at Jihad Watch by commenter "mike ryan" were separated by other unrelated text, so the contradiction apparently went unnoticed by other readers:

Paragraph 1:
Anyone who has traveled in Muslim countries knows of the existence of "opportunistic" homosexuality as men, forbidden normal sexual and social access to women, (as is also the case in prisons wherein heterosexual sexual contact is impossible) will dabble in homo-erotic contacts in its place, even if not normally homosexual in the proponderance of their proclivities. I've experienced this in a number of Muslim-Arab countries.

...

Paragraph 2:
Islam's moral code and laws relating to marriage breed hypocrisy. Take "temporary marriages" for example. A man has the "right" to establish sexual contact with as many women as he wishes, as long as he can afford to do so, and even when he can not afford it, by using a number of legal fictions afforded by Islamic law. Find yourself in a strange city for a month? No problem! Just hook up with a woman, proclaim you're married to her, and you can demand free sex without any of the annoying inconveniences of owing the woman anything.

As I noted at the time:

"Obviously, if Muslim men can get sex from women through Islamically sanctioned "temporary marriage" as easily as "mike ryan" claims in paragraph #2, then there isn't the dearth of heterosexual sex as "mike ryan" claims in paragraph #1.

[continued next]

Hesperado said...

[continued]

"In addition to "temporary marriage" in Islamic societies, we may also add the prevalence of rape (perhaps mostly of insufficiently hijabbed women as well as of non-Muslim women who find themselves in the unlucky circumstance of being alone in a Muslim neighborhood) as a common way for Muslim men to find sex around the ostensible strictures against fornication outside of Islamic marriage.

"We thus are led reasonably to the conclusion that homosexual sex (with a leaning to pederasty) for Muslim men is not the result of not having access to women, but has its source in the general demonic psychopathology of Islamic culture, along with everything else they think, feel, say and do.

"This common trope -- that Muslim men are denied sex with women and therefore seek out homosexual sex in its place -- is yet another manifestation of the Western tendency -- even among those in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement -- to see Muslims through a Western prism, as though deep down, the way to understand -- and thereby to lessen -- the bizarre monstrosity of Islamic culture, is to find something familiar (i.e., Western) to explain it somehow.

"Thus we tend to anthropomorphize (viz., Westernize) this utterly alien and ghoulishly repellant world called Islam -- even as we increasingly recognize its monstrous otherness. (By "we" I mean others around me in the West, including nearly everyone, apparently, in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement.)

"No doubt, this tendency to misunderstand the Muslim mind comforts, as increasingly we -- and particularly those of us in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement -- learn to our growing horror and dismay more and more about the freakishly demonic culture of Islam. Comfort at the price of truth, however, doesn't last, and sooner or later will come back to bite us in the ass."

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...

Hesperado,

I appreciate your logic and discernment, but I think that we may have to call upon those with actual and extensive experience of Muslim cultures to discuss some apparent contradictions when viewing these cultures. I do not have this kind of experience, but I do remember reading that it is generally the wealthy/affluent Arabs who can afford to buy girls or children, from the girl's parents, for temporary marriages.

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...

P.S. Even though the lives of many (if not most women) in Muslim cultures may be little better than the lives of those living under slavery from our point of view, I wonder about how extensive actual slavery still is in these cultures.

Slavery has been officially outlawed, I hear and read that it still exists in Niger, Mauritania, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has information about this.

Lawrence said...

on-my-own-in-berkeley said... I wonder about how extensive actual slavery still is in these cultures.

It depends how we define slavery.

There are many different kinds of slavery, identified by a variety of terms.

Chattel and Dhimmitude might be appropriate examples in this instance.

Lawrence said...

"Gender Apartheid"

That is the nice diplomatic term I was reaching for earlier today.

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...

Lawrence,
Of course it depends upon how we describe slavery. I'm talking about the kind of the slavery we had in the U.S.A. before the Civil War, in which people are literally purchased as a commodity and treated as such. It may be difficult to obtain accurate information about the prevelence of this in the contemporary Muslim world. This is a little off topic here, but perhaps some knowledgable person will post or write an article for Gov.

Zenster said...

Lawrence: "Gender Apartheid"

That is the nice diplomatic term I was reaching for earlier today.


I first saw this term used sometime around 2006 by Victor Davis Hansen in its full form:

"Abject Gender Apartheid".

I continue to use his concise summation of institutionalized Islamic misogyny to this day.

Zenster said...

I submit that many here are projecting way too many Western notions of intimacy, love and general gender interaction onto what, in Islam, must most likely be an act of simple domination or self-gratification.

Even the most cursory examination of Islam reveals it to be an intensely uncaring system. Women as chattel, children as pawns used for political or financial gain, status measured by the number of wives, slaves or animals owned.

All of this is about control, manipulation and ownership. Why should interpersonal relationships, even sexual ones, be any different? Perhaps, most especially, sexual ones.

When one considers the immensely inferior status of women in Islamic cultures, "cleanliness" is probably of little consequence with respect to seeking sexual gratification.

Far more likely is that many Muslim males view tenderness, concern for the pleasure of a bed mate and most of the interpersonal attachment that sexually active Westerners take for granted as totally irrelevant, if not a sordid display of personal weakness and individual vulnerability.

It is this notion of vulnerability that figures prominently in any such analysis of Muslim sexuality.

Being "caught with one's pants down", to be held hostage by the love of another, an inability to sever emotional bonds at the first hint of any loss of face or social status; all of these are anathema to the high context culture of daily Muslim life.

If anything, our perceptions of Muslim culture are shaded by presumptions of gender equality which simply do not exist within Islam.

Consequently, the prominent role that sexual partners play in the social and marital life of Westerners has no counterpart within Islamic culture. Flaunting even a respectable, sanctioned and licit sexual relationship in Islamic culture is viewed as indiscreet, immoral and licentious.

How, then, are we to expect that there should manifest even minor feelings of attachment, devotion, dedication or genuine concern within temporary liaisons (homo or heterosexual), much less in the progress of accepted marital relations?

Over and over again within Islam, socially accepted marriages are beset with physical abuse, spousal rape and the murder of willful children. How can there be any reasonable expectation that temporary sexual liaisons which are so often fraught with danger to one's social standing, be they heterosexual or not, should contain any of the gentle intimacy or compassion that is so frequently absent from even genuine Islamic marriages?

Put another way sex, even in some of its most casual and impersonal Western forms, most likely is imbued with more sincerity than much of what is seen in Islam.

It is safe to wager that any attachment which an Afghan warlord feels for his pet dancing boy goes no further than the pride of ownership felt by the buyer of a fine sports car. The male Muslim mind is too sere and infertile to allow the blossoming of genuine affection. Such feelings would immediately compromise those parameters which dictate the dimensions of his masculinity and, by extension, his social standing.

We must put aside all notions of "gayness", affection or compassion when seeking to understand this effort at sexual release within Islamic society. Love has nothing to do with what we are seeing, no matter how much we have been trained to expect its presence.

Lawrence said...

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...
Of course it depends upon how we describe slavery. I'm talking about the kind of the slavery we had in the U.S.A. before the Civil War, in which people are literally purchased as a commodity and treated as such.


Muslims generally don't treat their slave class as a commodity. Although some areas in N.Africa who've traded in slaves historically, and have become Muslims do so.

In Muslim culture the do view certain peoples as "lesser", akin to a higher order of animal. And while they don't specifically own them, they do control them, and that lesser class of people fulfill the same function as purchased and owned slaves.

Muslims would not purchase slaves. But they would conquer infidels and force them to do their menial labor. So depending on how one looks at it, it really is the same thing in the long run.

And... btw, the type of slavery we talk about in early U.S. history was well established in Africa and continues in Africa. One African group subjugating another group and then selling them off.

We often give the black eye to U.S. slavery (and we should), but then ignore the African on African slavery that occurred priort to and occurred after.

In kind, we can't ignore the type of forced servitude that comes with dhimmitude. It is evident in how Mulsims treat conquered peoples and treat their women.

Lawrence said...

Zenster, I agree with your take on this. I often rail against taking a Western mindset regarding Islamic culture, then I turn around and do just that.

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...

Lawrence,

Everyone knows that slavery existed in Africa before African slavery was imported into the Americas.

There was a GoV article some time ago (I think the author was either the Baron or Fjordman) which made the point that the bulk of the African slave trade was not transatlantic but rather went in the other direction to the Arabian peninsula and other Muslim lands.

Historian Bernard Lewis and many others (including eye witnesses) have written about Muslim slave auctions. African slaves in Muslim cultures were indeed sold as commodities.

As commodities, there are some records of these business transactions. A few contemporary African historians have been researching these records (e.g., bills of lading) and have been documenting the disproportionately large involvement of Muslims in the slave trade, both as sellers and buyers.

When I asked my question, I did not mean to ask it of someone who knows less about the subject matter than I do.

Hesperado said...

About Islam and slavery, there are two overarching themes with regard to our War of Ideas:

1) the magnitude, and quality, of the slavery practiced by Muslims during the many centuries before the 19th when the West (which by then had become the World) outlawed slavery (this being one of hundreds of processes that demonstratred the West's remarkable and unique capacity for self-reform);

and

2) the continuation of slavery by Muslims throughout the 19th, 20th and now 21st centuries -- which should include de facto slavery (such as, for example, the treatment of foreign (most SE Asian) workers on the Arabian peninsula).

The first category involves historiography; the second involves both historiography and journalism. Since PC MC has compromised the rational efficacy of both historiography and journalism over the past 60-odd years to the present, it would be very difficult to get good information about slavery (at least as practiced by non-white non-Westerners) in our time.

For the first category, there may well exist many illuminating scholarly articles hidden away in dusty academic journals which cannot be accessed on the Net (or require membership and payment per issue -- as, for example, the journal Muslim World, which likely during its first 50 years (1911-1961) and perhaps another decade after that time, produced dozens of non-PC articles directly or indirectly relevant to this subject; though alas, it has succumbed to the PC MC disease in spades, having promoted a Muslim academic, Yahya Michot, as chief editor -- a Muslim who is friends with Tariq Ramadan and who revived a fatwa to condone the massacre of French monks in Algeria as a religious Islamic duty).

Lawrence said...

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...
"When I asked my question, I did not mean to ask it of someone who knows less about the subject matter than I do."

I appreciate the back-handed compliment. I was just trying to discuss the issues from my point of view.