Attacking male sexuality

Male identity is one of the fundamental drivers of the MGTOW movement; which, for anyone returning to this planet after a decade of vacation, is a growing pathway of masculine self-identity in which men are rejecting a statist, a collectivist, feminist or even a female-approved definition of what constitutes a man.

Instead, MGTOW men, or Zeta males, are defining their own identities as men – without much regard for the convenience and utility of those identities to outsiders, to women or to a runaway state. It is, in fact, a revolution of thought in which men declare themselves human beings of worth – and don’t ask permission or apologize or allow anyone else to devalue their humanity in preference to their utility.

Male sexuality is of course both demonized and treated as a form of predation, but also strictly limited to a narrow set of acceptable expressions. Outside of sexual identities which place men in positions to benefit women as sexual gate-keepers, masculine sexuality is generally condemned.

This is evident in the frequent use of rhetorical attack on male sexuality as a go-to response to criticism of feminist dogma. Almost as popular as “you just hate women” is a catalog of ad hominem attacks reducing to “small penis, mother’s basement dwelling, and unemployed virgin”. These standard and frankly boringly predictable insults all relate to a man’s inability to gain access to sex, or in the case of an imputed tiny penis – to perform sexually.

The most absurd and telling indictment of this most puerile insult is that the accusation of sexual failure is nothing more than a reflection of the feminine sexual selection of whatever woman offers such commentary. Oh, you don’t fancy me? I can assure you darling, I completely understand just how you feel.

However, there is a thread of opinion with a growing currency among some MRAs which rejects the legitimacy of men whose self identity and sexuality is gay or bisexual, or indeed, transsexual.

Some of the rhetoric around this refers in condemning tones to the “gay agenda”, which as nearly as I can tell, includes such radical notions as “let’s not beat up or murder gay men” and the equally shocking “let’s extend to gay men and women the same legal rights everybody else has” and so on. If that’s the gay agenda – as a MRA, or just as a decent human being, then I’m behind it.

Sometimes scriptural argument is invoked in the condemnation of gays, bisexuals, and anyone else whose sexual identity is non-heterosexual.

None of the other obsolete rules of ancient holy writings are given modern credence, but gay men are heaped with scorn and contempt and scripture is used to justify it? I don’t have much to say to this attitude besides grow up and get over it.

Male sexual identity is both policed and vilified in a feminized culture and some MRAs are now doing what amounts to the same thing. These are men (and women) whose sexuality, either chosen or not, doesn’t conform to an acceptable standard – and some within the MRM would demonize them. Gentlemen and ladies – this is nothing short of stupid.

At what point does who an individual finds sexually attractive diminish their value as a human? How is it that a man whose preference doesn’t include vagina becomes less of a man? Conversely, are we going to pretend the sexual preferences of our female colleagues matter in the context of partnership in the fight for the human rights of men and boys?

The valuation of human beings, of men and women, based on who they’d like to fuck or what kind of orifice they prefer is stupid and has no place in the men’s rights movement, or at AVfM.

Admittedly, some people might find the prospect of non-heterosexuality alien, foreign, and unappealing. As a much younger man, having inherited the prejudices of the era I grew up in, I was perplexed and scandalized to receive the occasional flirtatious attention of gay men. But then I grew up, and got over it. Isn’t it time for this human rights movement to do the same?

If we don’t get over it, then this is not a men’s rights movement, it’s a straight men’s movement. Or, it’s a white men’s movement, or maybe, a tall men’s movement, or a republican men’s movement. For myself, I find these narrow categories and self-selected separations to be unhelpful, and irrelevant in a larger fight for the humanity, and the human rights of men and boys. In the phrase “gay men”, gay is an adjective, and men is the noun.

When men are not expected to die without complaint any time higher gas prices make it inconvenient for soccer moms to drive from their gated community to the local grass pitch, or any other time men’s utility trumps their humanity, well then maybe I’ll entertain the usefulness of keeping the gays or the darkies out of the club house. On the other hand, maybe I’ll still think it’s a stupid argument. But I do know that for a so called men’s rights movement to marginalize men based on who they want in their bed – well, it’s beneath us.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: