Hey ladies who support gay rights! Has it ever occurred to you that by supporting gay rights, you’ll end up turning more men gay, and then there won’t be any straight men left to marry you?
Wait, you’re saying that hasn’t occurred to you?
Well, it’s definitely occurred to some dude who calls himself Aper on the MGTOWHQ forum. Let’s let him explain:
Most women support gay rights, even the ultra conservative ones from what I’ve seen. Are they unknowingly shooting themselves in the foot by doing so?
Go on.
My opinion on homosexuality is that a small number of people are born gay, maybe with a “gay gene” activated or something of the sort, or brain of the opposite gender, but most gays are created by their environment (upbringing, lack of sexual interest from the opposite sex, etc.).
Yeah, I don’t think it quite works like that.
Think back to when you were 13-14 years old. I was perved out of my mind then, beating off like 2-3 times a day while looking at porn mags and the yearbook pics of girls I wanted to bang. I never once was attracted to men or even thought about being attracted to men, at least partially because that was completely taboo when and where I grew up.
Ok, that’s a bit TMI, but please continue.
Nowadays, it’s different to the point where … it’s almost celebrated to be gay. So take a normal 13-14 year old guy today. He might be hornier than the past generations were since sex is everywhere now. He’s probably not successful in talking to girls, let alone in getting laid (80/20 rule).
Yeah, ok, that “80/20 rule” is pure manosphere bullshit, but it’s true that the overwhelming majority of 13-14 year old boys are not having sex. And not just because girls are snobby.
What would happen if he was approached by another male teen, who asked him if he wanted to “experiment?” If that would’ve happened when I grew up, we would’ve whooped some ass, but think about the current times. That’s becoming increasingly normally.
It’s becoming normally?
What I’m getting at is what if a young guy, horny out of his mind, decides to experiment? Once a guy crosses that line, deciding to sleep with other males, why would he cross back over to women?
Uh, maybe because he’s, you know, not actually gay?
He’d go from getting easy sex anytime to playing games with broads, getting the run around for weeks, and if he finally manages to score, it would probably be some half ass vanilla BS. What man would leave the former lifestyle for the latter?
Probably a straight guy?
Speaking of which, Aper wants everyone to know that he is as straight as a sack full of hammers — ok, I don’t know what that expression means, I just made it up. But time-travelling counterfactual alternative history Aper? He might go the gay way.
Your ol’ pal Aper is as straight as can be. I’ve been approached by guys before and turned them down with no second thoughts and I’d like to think that there’s nothing that could have “turned me gay” in my youth, but I can’t be completely sure how I would’ve turned out if I was a teen today.
This leads Aper to wonder if women aren’t sowing the seeds of their own spinsterhood:
Are modern women turning more and more horny teens gay with a combo of their shitty attitudes and increasing tolerance, and even force feeding, of gay rights, and in the process effectively creating more men that won’t be dealing with their sorry asses anytime in the near future?
Hmm. That sounds pretty dire for the ladies.
But wait. Two can play this game. Couldn’t modern women just go gay themselves and gay marry each other?
Oh, but then they wouldn’t be able to leech off men. Damn, ladies, it looks like you’re screwed — figuratively, not literally, at least in the heterosexual sense. Yep, it sure looks like it’s CHECKMATE MEN.
As Aper’s MGTOWHQ comrade OU812 notes delightedly,
If the revulsion straight men have to homosexual activity is purely cultural, women will be absolutely screwed should the taboos fall away. Imagine — men offered sexual release with partners who want nothing more than to get off with them — no emotional support demanded, no financial support demanded, no social duties demanded — just sex. Holy fuck they would be screwed. It would be awesome if true.
But he is quick to add that he doesn’t swing that way, nosirreebob. His sexual tastes are a little more specialized.
Personally, I’d sooner fuck a cantaloupe.
ManWithAPlan sees another benefit to the gay thing:
I don’t know about going gay … but there’s one advantage, gay marriage. If they ever put a brutal bachelor tax, you can always marry your best buddy who shares the same ideals, get a prenup, and do your own thing.
Heck, there’s even an Adam Sandler movie about that.
Meanwhile, someone calling himself dubya (probably not the former president) offers an almost Reichian analysis of sexual repression.
If you’re depending on males to carry the nation, you can’t have them acting like Dennis Rodman. They have to be clean cut, macho, have the proper male interests growing up like exploration, taking things apart, they can’t be even the least bit gay or engaged in any kind of hedonism. They should be domineering and entitled.
Because that’s the only way they’ll be able to complete a life of service to society, women and the state.
If men start getting hedonistic ideas like running around in a tutu, growing their hair long, sucking each others dicks, and such, that breaks down the country.
In a way, feminism is almost like a male revolution.
It freed us and enslaved women, now THEY have to be clean cut, macho, domineering and so forth for the life of service and benefit to the state while MEN can now be totally hedonistic and a bunch of dudebros.
Huh. Apologies to Messrs. Reich and Rodman, but I don’t think it’s quite that simple.
There are a few MGTOWHQers who aren’t quite so enamored of the gay hypothesis, or gay people in general.
As The Running Man sees it,
gay people are the ENEMY of men. They nearly always side with women, liberals and feminists and of course various NGO, SJW political activists who are the scum of the earth.
DruidV has an even more basic objection:
No offense to anyone, but I could never look at another Man’s hairy, furry ass, and fall in love.
So maybe the women of the world are safe, for now.
Botheration!
Here’s the song rather the whole tham ding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taSH_nZkRdw
Homophobia has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. As one of the majority of men who are exclusively or primarily attracted to women, how can it possibly be any problem for me that a minority of men are attracted to other men? What possible harm might I suffer? Why should it seem like almost an existential crisis for some men that gay men even exist? I suppose one might ask me for a date, but don’t I know how to say no politely? (Actually I have profited from gayness in other men, since the boyfriend my wife would have married before she met me turned out to be gay.)
I have only been able to think of two reasons why the existence of gay men should be a problem for straight men.
(1) the obvious one is that they are repressing homosexual urges and are afraid that if society condones gay sex they might be tempted to try it. And that would be the end of the world, of course.
(2) knowing how men sexually objectify women, they are afraid that gay men would do the same thing to them. The evidence for this is … crickets.
My question has always been, why do you care, let alone why do you care so much.
The trope that most homophobes are secretly gay serves primarily to make homophobia look like a thing that LGB people do to each other rather than a thing straight people do to us. Please don’t use it.
More generally, homophobia is a form of misogyny, based on gender essentialism. Challenging homophobia means challenging gender essentialism which means challenging patriarchy and male privilege. All straight men have a vested interest in keeping homophobia around (which is not to say that no straight men aren’t allies, just that homophobia is always going to be the default position for straight men).
GrumpyOldMangina – I don’t think homophobia is a natural tendency. For the reasons you point out, it doesn’t make any logocal sense. It’s one of those things where men are taught to enforce masculinity in one another to avoid breaking down the gender barriers.
Um…they are all idiots. And quite willfully so.
(And on that note: Funny how it’s easier to choose to be stupid than gay or straight.)
LG: I think you are correct that I should have mentioned the constant homophobic bullying and badgering that goes on constantly in a lot of male groups, starting at quite an early age. I seem to recall that there was quite a bit of it even back in the dark ages when I was young — and I didn’t meet an out gay person until I was well into my 20s. Strangely enough, I wrote a post about the prevalence of the gender-role-reinforcement-by-ridicule among young men as a major force in perpetuating toxic masculinity — I should have remembered my own words.
“The trope that most homophobes are secretly gay serves primarily to make homophobia look like a thing that LGB people do to each other rather than a thing straight people do to us.
Leum: I can see how you would react that way, but if you assume for a moment that there are men who are battling against homosexual urges, it is surely not because they expect to be persecuted by gay people for those urges — it is because they expect to be persecuted by straight people. So it is something that straight people do to gays, and certainly not anything that gays do to themselves. You may be right in terms of what the average person thinks, but I never would have seen it that way myself.
@GOM: It’s not as prevalent as it was say ten years ago, but back when Ted Haggard and Larry Criag were “caught” having same-sex sexual relations the joking about homophobes being secretly gay was so so strong that you legit got the impression that a lot of straight allies believed all major homophobes were secretly gay and that if they just admitted they were gay all homophobia would go away.
You see something similar on a more individual level today when dmab people talk about wanting to wear dresses/makeup/etc and people act like it’s their own internalized sexism that prevents them rather than cissexism from men and women.
@Leum
Okay your first thought is right on. However your end point is bull. Homophobia is a learned reaction not something in born. Your suggestion that all straight men are vested in keeping homophobia around is reckless at best and downright offensive a worst. Also as a group we need to come up with a better word to use then homophobia because it really not a phobia it’s a prejudice.
No. Pointing out that privileged groups benefit from the oppression of marginalized groups even if they aren’t personally doing the oppressing and aren’t bigots is social justice 101 level stuff.
Not acknowledging that is what’s harmful.
@WWTH: no, That addition of the word vested makes or gives the statement the meaning that someone is actively interested or actively give an interest in the marginalization of LGBT. additionally If the statement was Straight man are vested in ect. I have would have no issue.
Welcome back, Ken the Sealion. You were not missed.
We do not need someone in here to come in and argue about semantics. Like srsly.
Ken,
In a thread about someone saying horrible misogynistic and homophobic things, you don’t comment on anything other than a commenter saying something that could be interpreted as mean to straight men. That says a lot about your priorities right there.
^^This.
This isn’t about straight men and their fee-fees. We don’t need to alter language to make it easier for them to deny what they’re doing. No more outs.
Ken, questionable cogency aside, you’re just plain wrong about what the sentence means. You seem to have confused “have a vested interest in” with “are invested in.” What it *actually* means is “stand to gain from.”
sn0rkmaiden, I’m doing a post on the return of kings contingent at the white power convention. It’s amazing a) that they’ve chosen to link themselves to an honest-to-goodness SPLC-labeled hate group and b) that naso’s behavior EMBARRASSED THE WHITE POWER DUDES. They also made a point of calling him “swarthy” and “questionably white.”
@opium4themasses
For a guy who grew up in the time & place that he did, Heinlein was spectacularly open-minded. He could never be described as a man who celebrated gay culture, but insofar as he mentioned gay/bi men in his books (now that I think about it, I don’t recall him ever mentioning bi or lesbian women), his views evolved from an attitude of “they’re messed up, but harmless” to “hey, I’m not interested, but whatever floats your boat”, which is probably about as good an attitude as you could possibly expect from a het man with his background.
In Heinlein’s later books (checks, well, laterish) like Time Enough For Love. he writes about pansexual families/relationships. Or am I remembering wrong ?
Interesting that Heinlein is being discussed here and on David Gerrold’sd FB 🙂
David
That’s hilarious and disgusting at the same time… He made the horrible racists uncomfortable, but of course they have to be horribly racist in their response and link his bad behavior to “non-whiteness.” Ugh.
OK, on topic. Man that guy is projecting so hard I wanna order 16 of him and open up a movie theater. “I was like this at 13 or 14, so EVERY BOY EVAR was just like that…” “I totally want only meaningless sex constantly so EVERY MAN EVAR does.” So basically he might be right if the male population was made out of 3.5 billion clones of this guy… well except for him specifically because he’s totally straight, but if these 3.5 billion clones of him that weren’t as totally grade A straight as him would totally turn gay. But not him. All the others.
@gilshalos In I Will Fear No Evil, he starts with transexualism in an incredibly awkward way. One could argue that he touches on Pansexualism in Time Enough for Love, but again, does it in a very clunky way. (And that was the book I was thinking of in the latter half of my comment.)
@gilshalos (TL;DR: No, you’re not remembering wrong.)
🙂
That Aper guy is almost cute in his total ignorance. (Oh, and while I hesitate to make statements about other people’s sexuality, he does end up sounding like a closet case, whether he likes it or not. “Men can have awesome no-strings attached sex with other men every day of their lives! Who would go back to women after that? But I totally don’t swing that way or anything.”
@David, I look forward to reading it, there’s a rich vein of mockery to be mined there.
If they think Naso isn’t ‘white enough’ with his olive skin, I wonder what they make of Roosh? RoK and the White Nationalists, truly a strange pairing.
Re OP. I wonder if it’s a note of jealousy I hear in Aper rather than closet gayness? I mean, setting reality aside, if redpillians BELIEVE that gay men get to have no strings sex whenever they want, I can see why frustrated incels, MGTOWs etc would envy that.
I’ve seen the same embittered fantasies expressed towards hetero women, most redpillians believe that women can just ‘get sex’ by snapping their fingers at the nearest member of the 20%.