Today, as many of you no doubt know, is Gay Pride Day. Here in Chicago, that means the annual Pride Parade, a celebration of all things LGBTQetc — and a nice aerobic workout for parade participants. (Gyrating on a float for three hours dressed in a leather harness and thong will burn roughly 1000 calories. But beware of chafing!)
Rookh Kshatriya, proprieter of the Anglobitch blog (devoted to the notion that women in the Anglosphere are, well, bitches), has evidently decided to celebrate Pride Weekend by offering us all his theories on gay male sexuality. Which is to say, his theory that there is no such thing as gay male sexuality, and that all those gay men out marching today would much rather be spending their Sunday eating bagels and doing the New York Times crossword puzzle with some comely (non-lesbian) lasses.
Yep, in Rookh’s World, gay men – or, as he puts it, “gay” men — are actually nothing more than exceptionally horny straight men who have been unfairly denied sex-on-demand with women of their choosing.
Let’s let him explain this:
Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men.
Alas, in our Feminazified world, women sometimes refuse to have sex with men. Deprived a natural outlet for their sexy urges, horny dudes have to, well, improvise a bit. Why try to finagle your way into a vagina assiduously guarded by some dumb lady, when other dudes just as horny as you have holes of their own available for the asking?
As Rookh sees it, these uber-horny dudes really have no other choice.
[A]re most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it.
A terrible, terrible injustice. But there is a way out:
Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.
Unless, of course, these whims involve sex with, you know, women. But lust is apparently stronger than mere sexual orientation. As Rookh sees it, homosexuality is the only rational choice for uber-horny men – even if they’d rather be boning women.
Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.
Is this all a prelude to a touching coming-out announcement by our man Rookh?
No such luck. It’s actually an excuse for, yes, more feminism-bashing. For it is the evil feminists who, in Rookh’s world, have been encouraging the “female sexual ostracism” of poor suffering straight men:
As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose.
And so, in Rookh’s world,
homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. … [F]eminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere.
Feminism, by encouraging women to say “no” when they don’t actually want to have sex, may have created modern homosexuality, in Rookh’s view. But that doesn’t mean that feminists actually like gay dudes. No. Ick!
[T]he vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general. … the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality [is that] the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.
Yeah, seems to me that the only one here who really “detest[s] gay men” is, well, Rookh, so much so that he’s decided to completely erase gay male sexuality – to put “gay” in scare quotes – in order to give himself another opportunity to run down feminists and women in general.
Now, human sexuality is a weird, messy, complicated, wonderful thing. It may well be that some bisexual men end up having sex with men more often than with women because they find it easier to find male sex partners for casual sex. But guys who are thoroughly gay – who would score a 6 on the famous Kinsey scale – don’t actually want to have sex with women. They really don’t. Drop a beautiful, eligible, horny (straight or mostly straight) woman in the midst of a bunch of Kinsey 6 guys, and this is what you get:
Court’s free!
Isn’t he saying that all women are unpleasent?
No, you don’t get it. Omegas (like me) have to approach women, because, well, we’re men, and if we didn’t we’d literally die without having any contact with females. Thus, we need to be cruelly rebuffed by assholes constantly, with maybe a few nice girls thrown in (who probably still reject us, but I don’t mind being rejected nicely). Maybe a hundred thousand rejections in (99 thousand of which were cruel), we will meet someone who gives us the time of day. It’s psychologically crippling just thinking about it. I’d much rather be gay.
but men don’t have a hugely inflated view of themselves
**collapses in helpless laughter**
MRAL, you know nothing about the issues of appearance, weight, youth, etc. in gay male communities, NOTHING AT ALL.
Not to mention, the generalization about men is absolutely hilarious. **wipes tears from eyes**
“I flatly do not believe men are as mean as women….I see truckloads of evidence every fucking day.” MRAL, master of seeing only what he wants to see. Or maybe how many men treat women just isn’t centered around MRAL enough for notice.
MRAL, I don’t believe in your Greek system, but since you do, er, shouldn’t people basically expect to mostly get with people who are at their same level on the scale? Yet you reject Omega women, and have said all sorts of horrible things about them. Why is it unfair for women you rate as higher than you to reject you, especially since you reject women that have an equal rank as you?
Seconded what David has said, also MRAL since you seem to believe that all women are cruel bitches who reject you, why should any woman give you the time of day? Especially with your attitude?
>>sexuality can be very fluid. <>Why do [women] hate [gay men]? Difficult question. Maybe we should ask Ruby Thomas, she beat one to death?<<
OMG a…an..ANECDOTE. Which somehow proves a general trend. That'll sway us.
Because the ranks are unfair. Women are only omegas if they are fat. Thus, most women are not omegas. Also, weight can be altered. Many, many more men are omegas because if you didn’t have the good grace to be tall and/or facially attractive… well, you’re probably an omega. This is very simplified, but essentially accurate. If you have one of those two traits, probably a beta. If you have both, probably an alpha. Finally, the things men are rated on (height/facial) are permanent and not alterable. It’s not fair.
“No, you don’t get it. Omegas (like me) have to approach women, because, well, we’re men, and if we didn’t we’d literally die without having any contact with females.”
I wouldn’t mind that at all.
“Thus, we need to be cruelly rebuffed by assholes constantly, with maybe a few nice girls thrown in (who probably still reject us, but I don’t mind being rejected nicely). Maybe a hundred thousand rejections in (99 thousand of which were cruel), we will meet someone who gives us the time of day. It’s psychologically crippling just thinking about it. I’d much rather be gay.”
Oh, that’s interesting…
How are these reactions exactly, what are they saying to you?
Since of course I never approached any women in my life, but of course you can’t get through life without interacting with some of them…
I just always noticed that the fat and ugly ones were more likely to act dismissive and unfriendly, the “attractive” ones were much more likely to be nice.
MRAL: Just noting that this whole Greek theory, especially about women are omegas just because they are fat and that can be altered, so men especially you have it worse off–you’ve said this before. Several times. Nobody bought it then. Nobody’s buying it this time.
And as I often tell my students: LIfe is not fucking fair. Accept it, grow, and move on. It’s not fair for anybody.
So fucking stop complaining about it.
“Many, many more men are omegas because if you didn’t have the good grace to be tall and/or facially attractive… well, you’re probably an omega.”
Is Mick Jagger an omega?
Yeah, I certainly didn’t have the same group of guys teasing and humiliating me for 8 years. Guys are too nice for that. (Dude, do you even know any MEN?? We already know you don’t know any women.)
As for the lesbians, I have no clue personally, but in a sex/gender class the text said that lesbians report the least amount of sex of any group. I had a friend who was heterosexual but homoromantic and who would get in nonsexual relationships with girls. I bet that’s more common with the ladies than the menz, but that would be a guess (I’m sure there’s some gay male couple who don’t have sex … somewhere).
Anyway, yeah. Gay men. I quite like gay men. They don’t want to have sex with me and don’t try. Single men try, married men try … at this point I feel more comfortable around lesbians than straight men, since it happens so often that straight men get grabby. I’d love to have more gay male friends. I need more dudefriends.
Of course, MRAs would use this as evidence of … something that makes women look bad, rather than blaming the guys with the wandering hands ….
“Um…that would be queer girls. -_-
And the answer is: we fuck.”
Oh god.. spare me the details…
but how do we prove that… you know, there are some prejudices around about them like the lesbian bed death 😉
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. I know blue balls can be painful, but your nuts will not actually explode and kill you if you don’t fuck anything but your hand.
Oh crap, here we go again with the infallible Greek system. I know I didn’t get an answer last time I asked this, but … according to Mr. Al, only fat women are omegas, and all fat women are omegas.
So, girls with self-esteem problems are not omegas.
Girls who were picked on every day in high school are not omegas.
Facially unattractive girls are not omegas.
Girls with facial deformities are not omegas.
Girls who are too skinny are not omegas.
Very hairy girls are not omegas.
Physically disabled girls are not omegas.
Mentally disabled girls are not omegas.
Now, mind you, I’m certainly not trying to argue that any of the above groups are omegas — I think the whole thing’s bullshit anyway. But as a person who used to be a girl, and constantly felt unlovable because … whatever. Because I wasn’t wearing the right clothes. Because I wore glasses in high school. Because I wasn’t hot. Because I was socially awkward. Because I looked and felt and was different from the people I saw around me who were confident and desired.
I mean, fuck man. What you are saying about the unalterable truths about men and women runs completely counter to my experiences as a person. Who am I to believe — Mr. Al, or my own lying eyes? Lots of people feel out of place and insecure and unlovable when they’re your age. Men, women, straight, gay, bi — LOTS of people. And I get it that you feel like you’re the only one, and I understand why you’re making it out to be a gender thing when it’s not. It’s just really fucking annoying.
“As for the lesbians, I have no clue personally, but in a sex/gender class the text said that lesbians report the least amount of sex of any group. I had a friend who was heterosexual but homoromantic and who would get in nonsexual relationships with girls. I bet that’s more common with the ladies than the menz, but that would be a guess (I’m sure there’s some gay male couple who don’t have sex … somewhere).
Anyway, yeah. Gay men. I quite like gay men. They don’t want to have sex with me and don’t try. Single men try, married men try … at this point I feel more comfortable around lesbians than straight men, since it happens so often that straight men get grabby. I’d love to have more gay male friends. I need more dudefriends.
Of course, MRAs would use this as evidence of … something that makes women look bad, rather than blaming the guys with the wandering hands ….”
No, I always love these constructions… it’s really difficult to 1. complain about men that they can’t restrain themselves & behave so badly, that you’re afraid of them 2. simultaneously claim that women have the same sex drive as men 3. still sound reasonable.
“Because the ranks are unfair. Women are only omegas if they are fat.”
I guess you must’ve slept through all the bottom-feeders talking trash about how Ozy looks even though she’s definitely not “fat”. Fuckwit.
MRAL, I know I shouldn’t engage, but what about a woman with a facial deformity? Wouldn’t she be an “omega”? Or do women with disabilities just not exist in your system? Surely there are ways for a woman to be unattractive to a man besides being fat. If you’re stumped, other MRA guys are constantly listing examples.
I don’t want to share any ugly personal experiences, but before you go around claiming that men in the dating scene never act mean-spirited or arrogant, you really need to talk to either a straight woman or a gay man. Your choice. Actually, talk to the gay guy; he’ll have funnier stories. Afterwards, you can share your own horror story about the incredible cruelty inflicted on you by that one girl who said hi to you in the elevator, but it wasn’t a really friendly hi, it was just a regular hi. I’m sure no one will be able to top that.
The VERY RARE women with a condition or facial deformity is in a special class of “undeserved female omega”. I have sympathy for them as I do male omegas. But they aren’t the norm as with men.
So would you date one of these women? If not, why not?
I probably would. After all, I have a facial deformity.
Oh dear god.You do not have a facial deformity. Get over yourself.
You wanted an answer, clearly hoping to back me into a corner and make me a hypocrite. Unfortunately for you, the answer is yes, if a girl had a facial deformity comparable to mine. Which is considerable.
Spare me the details…
Okay Marc, I’ve give you the G-rated version. When a mommy and another mommy love each other very much, they have a special cuddle…
Yes, it’s true that lesbians report having sex less frequently than gays or straights, and are more likely to have (in some cases, quite happily) sexless romantic relationships.
It’s also true that women with female partners are more likely to actually enjoy what sex they do having. So…I’d call it a draw?
Besides, the point is not to prove that women’s sex drive is exactly the same as men’s; that would be absurd. The point is that women do, in fact, have an independent sex drive.
Also, why would you call women with facial deformities “very rare”? Compared to men? Do you think that somehow being female makes your face biologically inviolate?