Understanding Homosexuality. If there is a distinction between so-called ‘assholes’ and ‘bums’ it must surely lie in the fact that the one is perceived as the nadir of subjective phenomenality and the other somewhat cynically disparaged as the zenith of subjective noumenality. For if we make such a distinction it soon becomes evident that there are two different axes at stake here with correspondingly different points of the axial compass, an extreme south-eastern point on the one hand and an extreme north-eastern point on the other hand, both of which would more or less accord with sensibility. To be an ‘asshole’ or, in English slang, ‘arsehole’ is in some sense to be beneath the pale of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate relativity in what transpires to being a state-absolutist position commensurate with social democratic totalitarianism. It is to be neither parliamentary nor puritan, just nor pseudo-righteous, but effectively communistic in the extent to which one has parted company with such relativity in favour of a justice absolutism – always more antichemical than physical – which has the effect of eclipsing pseudo-righteousness and effectively subsuming the male position, corresponding to physics, into the female one in quasi-just vein, thereby transforming knowledge-centred polemic from a pseudo-transcendental position (humanistic) in relation to church-subordinate pseudo-righteousness to a quasi-antirealist position in relation to state-absolutist justice, making of it an apologist for such class partisanship as affirms the sole rights, in social democracy, of proletarian humanism at the expense of its bourgeois, or liberal, counterpart. Hence an ‘asshole’ is in a very real sense someone who has forfeited even pseudo-righteousness to quasi-justice and now acts and thinks pretty much on the female level of absolute antirealism, in which bound soma takes absolute precedence over free psyche and everything revolves around the state. But is this not commensurate with homosexuality of one kind or another – male or female – and therefore with the nadir of sexual phenomenality, of post-church-subordinate state absolutism which has the effect of making even males behave like females to the extent that they are prepared to regard other males in a homosexually somatic light, not as brothers in free psychic partnership but as quasi-sisters in somatic binding? Therefore with the last bastion of state/church relativity swept away, these sexual degenerates behave like women or, more correctly, antiwomen, the antichemical corollary of what would have been a physical hegemony of men over antiwomen, masculinity over antifemininity, had not state-absolutist criteria, whether formally or informally, ensued at the expense of men. Consequently it would not be an exaggeration to say that homosexuals are effectively sexual communists and that homosexuality is the sexuality of an extreme, or totalitarian, form of social democracy which reduces everything, men included, to the overly mundane parameters of somatic binding, a binding which cannot but strain at its own leash in the interests of somatic freedom. But the irony is that such freedom can never be granted except to the ruling few of a communistic state-absolutist situation for fear of a general outbreak of evil and crime in neo-metachemical terms, the very terms which would be commensurate with a nazi-like revolt against Bolshevistic criteria and therefore with a fellow female-dominated opposition, based in absolute vanity at the expense of pseudo-meekness, to everything absolutely just, including, be it not forgotten, homosexuality itself. Therefore the people – and males not least - of such a radical social-democratic nadir are trapped in a sexually totalitarian dead-end from which there is no escape except via a return to state/church relativity and the comparative liberality of heterosexual intercourse. They may not be absolutely vicious, like the jerks of an absolutely vain disposition who, determined to keep their banners aloft, would goosestep them into the mud, but their virtue, affiliated to bound soma, is far from stable in relation to state-hegemonic criteria that acknowledges, even if it doesn’t always defer to, church-subordinate criteria and to the possibility of a pseudo-righteous ‘independence’ of justice. For stripped of pseudo-righteousness, their quasi-justice will always be straining, on the back of a free tradition, towards somatic freedom and hence the utmost phenomenal vice, of which buggery is the epitome, if only as an expressly phenomenal mode of masturbation that still requires to be differentiated from its noumenal and, in some sense, more openly vicious counterpart. Yet state-absolutist criteria degenerating off a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate tradition or axis are still quite distinct from anything appertaining to a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial tradition, and if the apex of this is often cynically disparaged, not least from the contrary axial standpoint, in respect of ‘bums’, it should not be forgotten that such ‘bums’ are a far cry from the ‘assholes’ or arseholes’ of phenomenal degeneracy, being, if anything, closer to ‘snogging’ than to ‘sodding’ and therefore of a category that transcends the cruder aspects of phenomenal degeneration from a standpoint oriented towards noumenal criteria of an intensely subjective order, of which chaste kissing between males may occasionally be an expression, if arguably of a no-less homosexual character than its phenomenal counterpart, albeit one conditioned by male hegemonic criteria and therefore far removed from anything crudely reductionist in overly somatic vein. However that may be, it is extremely unlikely that such godly males would regard themselves as ‘bums’, and one feels, in spite of the requirement of a comprehensive assessment of the various points of the axial compass even in regard to slang or denigratory expressions, that metaphysical types are anything but ‘bums’ in the more vulgar or derelict sense, being the closest of all males to a godly disposition. Neither, of course, are they ‘assholes’, for the noumenal can never be reduced to the phenomenal but must always be differentiated from anything corporeal in light of its ethereal status, whether in metachemistry or, across the axial divide, in metaphysics, the northeast point in question of the axial compass. Only physical/antichemical types degenerate towards homosexuality of an overly phenomenal character, and they are less to be pitied than despised for their want of psychic fidelity, the dark seeds of which were sown even in what could be called the masturbatory heterosexuality of contraception-utilizing liberality.