I found this article rather interesting, not so much for Stephen Fry's views but rather for the hysterical response to them by Anglo-American women. Dick Masterson once wrote, 'female anger is the weather-vane of truth'. Considering the Anglobitch rage elicited by Fry's comments (among 'feminist psychotherapists' and other pseudo-scientific finger-painters), one is inclined to give his acerbic views consideration, if not credence.
He has been called ‘the cleverest man in Britain’. But even Stephen Fry’s fans must feel there are limits to his expertise. And as one of the country’s most famous homosexuals, female sexuality is unlikely to be one of his specialist topics.
Yet 53-year-old Fry has raised eyebrows by claiming that women are unenthusiastic about sex, and see it only as ‘the price they are willing to pay for a relationship’.
Most straight men, he added, fear that ‘they disgust women’ and ‘find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are’.
Feminist writer Susie Orbach suggested the remarks said more about Fry than they do about women, and ground-breaking female journalist Rosie Boycott said he was talking ‘rubbish’. Fry told gay magazine Attitude that men feared that women were less interested in sex than them ‘for good reason’. If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas,’ he said.
‘Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, “God, I’ve got to get my ******* rocks off”, or they’d go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to s**g behind a bush. It doesn’t happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it.’
Fry, who hosts BBC quiz QI, added: ‘I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, “Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!” But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?’
Feminist journalist Miss Boycott said the claims were ‘kind of rubbish’, adding: ‘Women are just as capable as men are of enjoying sex.
'We don’t go cruising or cottaging on Hampstead Heath because we don’t need to. Women have other ways to get our thrills, and we can go and get them in bars or clubs.’
Psychotherapist and writer Miss Orbach said: ‘I’m really intrigued by his notion that men’s sexuality is disgusting in some way. Why would he believe that women could be so disgusted by men? Does he think there is something disgusting about sex?’
Fry has often spoken out for gay rights. He played Oscar Wilde in the 1997 movie Wilde, and a gay man dying of Aids in 1992 film Peter’s Friends. But he has also said he was celibate from 1979 to 1995. And in his autobiography this year he said he was only ‘90 per cent gay’ and had once been attracted to Rowan Atkinson’s wife Sunetra Sastry and his Cambridge University contemporary Caroline Oulton, now a novelist. Nothing happened with either woman. Fry is currently understood to be in a relationship with actor Steven Webb, 25.
SOURCE: Daily Mail, November 2010
As ever, one is struck by the 'mainstream' Anglo media's reflexive support for feminist hysteria and misandrist gynocentrism. Is any further proof needed of the close alignment between 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon culture and misandrist Anglo-American feminism?
In truth, the two are one.
Posts
My past experience in the Anglosphere has mostly been confined to American women, but Fry describes them fairly closely. I think most of them are completely indifferent to sex or with whom they have it. They always seem to behave as though it was 'the price they had to pay' for whatever their relationship interests happened to be at the moment.
ReplyDeleteAmerican culture also preaches that women are the 'owners' of sex; which is, not unconcidentally, the same attitude they have towards abortion. Just like they have abortions to prove that they 'own' reproduction; they willingly slut around with bums to prove that no one man 'owns' their sexuality. Which, in turn, also explains women's seemingly paradoxical terror of rape---a rapist forcibly takes what they believe themselves to 'own'.
Like everything else in Anglobitch culture, sex, for women, is purely a self-serving act with no consideration for the males involved. Anyone who's been involved with women from non-Anglo cultures notices immediately the contrast in female attitudes.
Of course Fry is right, on this issue at least.
ReplyDelete"Feminist journalist Miss Boycott said the claims were ‘kind of rubbish’, adding: ‘Women are just as capable as men are of enjoying sex."
Here is a common logical fallacy employed by the relativistic Marxist-Feminists, called the 'type-token ambiguity'.
What Fry is stating, relates to the generic drive of men's sexuality, as expressed in action and quantity [token measure]. What the feminist is alluding to, is that some women share this quality [type]. But the proof of this pudding is in the numbers.
And, as a corollary, how many men complain of having sex, as opposed to not having it; compared to women? Also, are men as frightened of women putting Rohypnol in their beer!?
Plus, if the feminists are right about women's sexual drive, why aren't there as many campaigns warning the public of female sexual predators; especially considering the excess of women in nurseries and primary schools? After all, feminists complain of the 'chore' of motherhood; in that feminist case, what kind of ulterior motive drives these women to look after other women's babies?
I have sometimes been tempted to attend a certain Health Spa. I have observed that women, no matter how old, fat or fugly, play hard to get, just as they do in pubs and clubs. They do, however tend to lose inhibition in the presence of very handsome, or very fit males. That however only supports Fry's thesis that women are just not as interested as men in sex per se.
ReplyDeleteThere is however the figure of the Gigolo, which at first sight might suggest interest by women in sex, however, Women seem to want to be seduced and romanced by their Gigolo, in a way that a female prostitute does not seduce and flatter her client. The relationship with the gigolo becomes an affair, where sex although important and essential only becomes the final act of the assignation. They fall in love with the gigolo.
Excellent point Opus.
ReplyDeleteThis might seem a bit controversial as a suggestion, but I do sometimes wonder whether some men in the Anglosphere adopt homosexuality as a 'lifestyle choice' because it guarantees them plenty of sex. Heterosexuality in most conditions does not secure anything like as many sexual encounters (even for high status males), if the florid anecdotes of gay men like Fry are anything to go by. In London, for example, many of the parks and public amenities are monopolized by homosexual males seeking casual sex, such that many citizens shun such places after dark. I have no doubt that most major cities in Britain, Australia and America are much the same.
ReplyDeleteAs anonymous says, Anglo-American women are feted as 'owners' of sex and this inevitably means 'sex-slave' status for males who heed the 'advice' of Tommy Fleming, David Futrelle, the 'PUA Hate' crowd and other Anglo White Knights. Not only is this status intrinsically demeaning, it also results in very little recreational sex - hence, the attraction of homosexuality.
I just did a google search for "PUA Hate", can you elaborate on what you meant by "PUA Hate Crowd"?
ReplyDeleteI am no fan of game.
Maybe I am too old for it.
I just refuse to lift so much as one more finger to do anything to appease or attract women ever again.
P.S. Why should I?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like they should be trying to attract and appease to me.
After all, I offer them much, they offer me nothing, except for ONE THING that I can do with my hand, and save myself millions of headaches and dollars.
Hatred of PUAs is justified for the right reasons but too many of that ilk are just ludicrous White Knights and woman-worshippers.
ReplyDeleteAs for the appeasement of women, you are quite right; the rewards do not match the efforts expended since they mostly despise men, anyway.
Women fall into one of three categories.
ReplyDelete1. Some will not have sex atall (at least with me - Lesbians, Celibates, Manipulators).
2. Some will have sex but make one (me) go through hoops. I enjoy the Game of seduction. The Game is also a test of my attraction, (thus useful for me and also for her as she will have some idea as to whether I really am keen rather than merely wishing to score) so unless I am seriously attracted the Game is just not worth the expenditure.
3. Easy Women. With 'easy women' I will but have no interest in her. The ease reveals either their lack of judgement (making me identikit) or alternatively poor impulse-controls (not good for long-term relationships). There is no Kudos in scoring with a Slut.
I have often suspected that a fair number of Gay Men, are really men who have compromised in their desire for sex and are thus not really 'Gay' atall. I suspect that Foucault is right in saying that there were no Gay men until the Nineteenth Century, the Churches viewing Homo-sexuality as a temporary Aberation - not by the way in my view a bad way of looking at things! Gayness frequatly seems to be a social construction for sexually frustrated men. I predict that the continuing demonisation of Hetero-Sexuality will lead to an increase in the numbers of Gay Men.
The view of Miss Boycott seems to entirely miss the point, that of Miss Orbach fails to see men's continual concern for women (and she'e a Psychotherapist!!).
Feminism is one of the biggest false tolerance. Feminists are always thinking that they are the most tolerable people in the world. But they are better hypocrites.
ReplyDeleteRookh,
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about the correlation between homosexuality and male disenfranchisement is especially evident in the case of transgendered people. In, almost every account I've ever read of a male-to-female transsexual, the TG person claims to feel 'free' or 'liberated'. I think the dynamic here is that they feel free of the oppression our culture places on males.
Also, the overwhelming percentage of transgender conversions are from male to female. It seems that if the whole thing were purely psychological, then there would be just as many women transitioning to men as vice- versa. That alone shows the the cultural component is at play.
*I predict that the continuing demonisation of Hetero-Sexuality will lead to an increase in the numbers of Gay Men.*
ReplyDeleteMaybe it already has. In Britain, for example, the 'Gay Rights' agenda has expanded in tandem with contraception and the expansion of female sexual choice. This is often described purely in terms of 'liberation'... but could it be that the female preference for shiftless thugs has left many males with little choice but to opt for homosexuality in order to secure sex? It is notable (to me at least) that 'gay' men in the Anglosphere seem to be typically smart, educated and middle class - exactly the sort shunned by the Anglobitch with her moronic thug fetish. I remember reading that gay men have the highest IQs of any sexual demographic, for instance.
Coincidence? Maybe.
Funny, when I started writing this blog I thought I would state my piece, inform a few people about the thesis and 'retire' (as a blogger, at least). However, these discussions really are profound and merit deeper research. The notion that unfettered female mate choice precludes high IQ males, who then become 'gay' to avoid the 'walking death' of sexual disenfranchisement is really seismic - it could make many 'waves' in society if widely known.
As you are quoting me, Rookh, may I be permitted to add the following and in support of what you say. Certainly my observation of Gay men I know, (I would have written 'Gay men I have known' but that might have given an unintended slant) is that they are educated, indeed intellectual one might say. Fry is as good an example as any. Such men are middle-class, frequently 'arty'; many have attended, as children, all male boarding-schools. They are not used in their formative years to dealing with females and as most boarding-schools have a religious agenda, that will involve a pedestalising of female chastity and consequent demonising of male sexuality. (It is noticable that gay men often pedastalise uber-feminine but unattainable women e.g. the late Dusty Springfield).
ReplyDeleteThey will however have a sex drive, and that is surely going to manifest itself in some way. Where? The place to look is in those areas where women are shaming of males, that is to say those area which do not involve middle-class women. Homosexuality and Masturbation are the most obvious but there is also Prostitution, Pornography and Paedophilia.
I realise that correlation is not corroboration but the apparent rise of the matters I mention above is taking place at the same time as the de-facto demonisation of hetero-sexuality.
I would suggest (particularily given the endless flaunting of themselves by females which seems to be in inverse-proportion to the sexual-aggression of men [witness the recent Canadian slut-march]) that western men are by any historical and geographic standards restrained and timed, (to the extent that it is psychologiocally adversely affecting them) yet the continual reinforcement is (at its worst) that they are proto-rapists, whereas any objective view is that the worst that they can be accused of is that they are merely incompetent and inexperienced as lovers. This frustrates the women who then throw themselves at thugs/foreigners/gigolos, (or, in despair, go Lesbian). That is to say women throw themselves at men who have little to lose and do not have the refined sensibilities and concerns of the middle class. In this respect an observation of trends in Pornography is useful. I am thinking particularily of the Porn Genres of Cuckolding, Strap-On, and BBW.
Middle Class Women are taught that they are as good as men yet they are inevitably intimidated by male intelligence. They are told that they have been oppressed, and therefore they acquire a general hatred of the representatives of that perceived 'oppression' i.e. middle-class Males. They are conflicted by the competing drives of their ambitions to be Male-like - yet do not have typical male-resilliance - with their biologically programmed female coping systems of duplicity, deviousness and tear. The male invented labour saving devices together with the Pill has enabled women to fill white-collar jobs (provided they are placated with AA*) with white-collar salaries thus 'liberating' women from financial dependance on men (or the production of the next generation) and the need to demonstrate any LTR* ability thus reducing the need for any SMV*. This produces unhappy unsatisfied females as (it is my view) that if a woman is not a wife and mother, she will end up being a whore/lesbian (and then in disgusted reaction to her perceived slutdom go religious).
The English working-classes (and small Upper Class) are quite different. Indeed as you have mentioned before the working-class male seems to have no trouble at all having sex with females, and do not need (the somewhat over-rated, rather desparate strategy originating from America of) Game. Game is only a coping strategy. Guys who turn women-on don't need it as they are naturally good at seduction. The English Working Classes loath Homo-sexuality and are scathing of Masturbation (as you have pointed out before). Tragically they are not the creators of the 'goodies' of civilisation.
Hmm. Well,whether he's right or not, his arguments are poor.
ReplyDeleteGay cruising areas came into existence for the simple reasons that (a) trying to pick somebody up in a normal place would either attract police attention or get your head kicked in and (b) people with minority interests form clubs, but the general population don't. There are clubs for model railway enthusiasts, but not for non-model railway enthusiasts. There is nowhere to go that is specifically for not discussing model railways.
Going back to (a) you have to remember how despised and legally dangerous homosexuality was until very recently. It is not surprising that the gay scene evolved.
Come to that, he might want to ask why homosexuality-as-we-know-it didn't exist until the ninteenth century, and still doesn't in most of the world.
Surely the "Anglobitch Thesis" should consider culture. Too much to go into in detail here, but from the late 18th century to the 19th, the Anglosphere was steamrollered by a massive Puritan revival; it created the woman-on-a-pedestal which in turn generated the modern Feminist and Anglobitch. There is enormous, intense social pressure from dominant-class females and dominant class social conventions for women not to be "cheap". A woman cruising would be despised by all- including men like the above commentator who would disregard a woman who approaches him for sex just because she had.
Men are as guilty as women for maintaining this social code. Don't blame women for making getting sex so hard, when you despise them if they don't. Gay men are not under such social pressure.
If women really don't like sex, we are a bit baffled as to why so many end relationships due to sexual dissatisfaction. There is ample evidence that sexual women (i.e. other than those heavily Puritanised) want more in a sexual session than most men evolved to provide; longer harder, more times, oh God, you haven't shot your wad already have you, is that it? Sigh.
cont...
cont...
ReplyDeleteOne good guess- we can't be sure of any of this, there is insufficient data- is that the female homo sapiens evolved for group sex. Lower class females- closer to nature than upper class ones wreathed in Puritan values- are "sluts". The two 12 year olds who had sex with multiple men recently (court case) are probably closer to female nature than a sniffy madam with a college degree. Anecdotal all this, of course, but it may be why they make more noise than men during sex (calling attention from more males) which is useless if there's just two of you doing it in your hut. The penis is scoop shaped to evacuate the vagina of previous males' sperm (the foreskin is probably functional here too). The modern instinct to "party" and the female urge to sexually display at such gatherings is a remnant of past behaviour. The female in a monogamous relationship, evolutionary primed for a long session of hard shagging by multiple males is thus left unfulfilled by the usually inadequate attempts of one male, who evolved to be really only interested in his orgasm and to come pretty rapidly ("premature ejaculation"). Women are hunting around for the minority who can last a long time and fulfill that sexual need; hence the fascination since the sexual revolution of improving male performance. Left to his own devices, men are happy with two minutes and a spooge and roll over and go to sleep.
Oh, and needless to say, porn is a simulation of that gang-bang scenario which is why we like it more than girls. We're primed to be standing around watching other guys have their turn; the girls are primed to be in the thick of it, not watching.
The true reason for a small number of alphas and a large number of betas is that the betas are the normal males who just can't satisfy a woman in a monogamous relationship, so get dumped all the time. The lucky Alpha is the male whose virility is sufficient to simulate the combined prowess of several other males. So-called "hypergamy" is a natural consequence of advanced economic systems with great wealth disparities- a very recent development for humans. What the girls are really homing in on is the virile males; and frequently getting it wrong. But you can't blame them for trying ;)
Just speculation of course, but so is Fry's thesis.
Some very profound ideas around the well-worn 'Sperm Wars' theme. This is interesting, though:
ReplyDelete*If women really don't like sex, we are a bit baffled as to why so many end relationships due to sexual dissatisfaction.*
Unless one considers that many women just don't like sex (that is, they are dissatisfied not by a LACK of sex, but by sex itself). I recall a study of underclass British women suggesting they preferred singleness and welfare-dependence because it meant a celibate lifestyle, one they evidently preferred. In other words, female sex avoidance may be instrumental in the expansion of the British (and pan-Anglosphere) Welfare State.
One thing I find peculiar about the article is its lionization of Fry as 'the cleverest man in Britain'. Cleverer than Stephen Hawking, say? I seriously doubt it.
'Clever' seems to be a word more often applied to someone who has wit and humor. Stephen Hawking is something else.
DeleteThanks Rookh. I found your site because I've been reading around a few of the MRA/"Game"/anti-feminist sites of late- I'm trying to get my shit together to write a book about the development of Anglo culture- and I liked yours more than most. A lot of it seems to have degenerated into a male copy of feminism. All anger and assumptions and not enough thought. In particular I think people are- like the feminists- treating the unique post-Victorian anglo value system as some kind of default and not trying to analyse how normal or otherwise it is for humans. I found your take on things refreshing.
ReplyDeleteANyway, on the "Gang Banger Thesis"... well, one thing we might expect from it would be that female desire would be variable dependent on time of month, age, and nursing status. This might be why women are so strongly "I want it NOW... I do not want it now". Add to that that if said culture did exist, it was replaced by largely enforced monogamy thousands of years ago, so we'd expect perhaps some considerable variation between individual women as to levels of desire (this is anoter thing that annoys me about feminists and the new masculists- the class fallacy of assuming all individuals in a class are identical wrt some characteristic. All men are rapists, all women are gold-diggers).
There's a complex interplay of culture and nature going on here. If (speculating wildly now) the "sychronised periods" idea is correct, the original state of women may have been to expect a serious seeing too around ovulation time, a festival that evolved into religion- early religions were generally sexually based. The best I can do here is that I've seen some (anecdotal) reports (including one or two of my own :) of some women becoming very sexually intense around ovulation compared to the rest of the month, and that might be a remnant.
But I'd guess just a couple thousand years of being stoned to death for adultery would allow considerable drift in genetic sexual behaviours, which is why we should expect a wide range of them. It is worth noting though that "patriarchal"/puritan cultures tend to focus on controlling female sexual behaviour, not male. You wouldn't think that necessary if females are really naturally frigid. If a female adulteress can't choose a divorce and marry a new male she picked up, adultery is a useless strategy for the frigid hypergamous woman, isn't it?
Sorry, forgot to answer your point!
ReplyDelete"I recall a study of underclass British women suggesting they preferred singleness and welfare-dependence because it meant a celibate lifestyle, one they evidently preferred. In other words, female sex avoidance may be instrumental in the expansion of the British (and pan-Anglosphere) Welfare State."
One snobby answer I could give there is maybe that's an effect of the general poor quality of underclass males in terms of both as provider and as sexual partner. If the key to female sexual satisfaction (under monogamy) is high virility synchronised with her menstrual cycle, and what is on offer is three minutes after he's got home from the boozer, the disappointment could turn into a general disatisfaction with sex and preference for none.
You certainly sound an interesting fellow. I think there is an urgent need to address these issues, in that Anglo culture embodies internal contradictions that are working the Anglosphere's decline, most of which hinge on relations between men and women. We are now in a post-Marriage era where none of the old sureties apply - indigenous birthrates are too low, the majority feel politically excluded and there is mass defection from 'traditional' gender roles. Politics and the MSM still think we are living in the 50s... but, as Samneric say to Ralph in The Lord of the Flies: 'Forget sense, that's gone...'
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Darwinian essentialism in much MRA writing is overly simplistic. An honest approach to these questions transcends that view - we are in the region of 'the bloody complicated' and no single paradigm can hope to answer everything. While cultural theories of sex and gender have tended to be feminist crap (the 'all sex is social' school developed by asexual women), to deny the structural influence of culture on human nature is similarly absurd (consider how the welfare state allows the idle, ugly and stupid to breed). That said, I truly believe my approach is the best conceptual avenue for examining these issues in the anglophone nations.
*One snobby answer I could give there is maybe that's an effect of the general poor quality of underclass males in terms of both as provider and as sexual partner. If the key to female sexual satisfaction (under monogamy) is high virility synchronised with her menstrual cycle, and what is on offer is three minutes after he's got home from the boozer, the disappointment could turn into a general disatisfaction with sex and preference for none.*
Support for this interpretation comes from the fact that low-status children are much less likely to be the biological children of their nominal father than high-status children. You should look into this. I'm not sure this difference relates to female sexual pleasure, more the low-quality genes on offer from plebeian males. It is interesting that illegitimate killers like Brady and Bundy are sometimes possessed of superior intelligence - obviously a by-product of lower-class women trying to improve the quality of their litter.
Rookh:
ReplyDeleteOn another MRA blog, an issue about intelligence came up recently. A commenter, who'd been studying US divorce demographics stated that the only demographic group he could find with a low (less than 10%) divorce rate were within couples where BOTH the man and woman had higher than average IQs or education. I wrote back that this may also explain why the US percentage of marriages to foreign women is steadily rising; since the foreign women who marry Anglo-American men tend to be the better educated (for example, they're typically bilingual or have professional degrees).
His sample, of course, represented a tiny demographic group since the vast majority of US women aren't the least bit interested in intelligent males. I saw a really good specimen on the subway yesterday:
There was a really attractive woman, fawning and slobbering over her 'prince': a guy with a pair of clown-pants hanging down under his ass and his hat on backwards and smelling like he hadn't been near a bar of soap since his last 30 days' in jail. Anyway, they got off at the same stop as I did; and Wonder-Boy stopped and stood in front of the schedule for a full minute. I was wondering what his problem was, since he was standing in everybody's way. Finally, she went over to him, and then I realized---he couldn't read it!
Given the quality and intelligence of American women, it actually seems more surprising sometimes that homosexuality isn't more common that it already is...
Eysenk wrote a book (which I read many years ago) called 'How to Have a Happy Marriage'. He by the way was happily married to his second wife. His conclusion was (as I recall) that to be happily married both partners needed to be easy going and tolerant. A society where women have high expectations and demands (low impulse control) and are encouraged to indulge themselves, etc is unlikely to produce those easy going qualities Eysenk saw as essential to Marriage. I put the onus here on Women for the simple reason that as the Divorce statistics show, men rarely institute Divorce Proceedings. Whether there is a Male Marriage Strike I could not say, but rather suspect that it is Women rather than Men who are becoming Marriage Adverse - that is of course quite apart from those who are Hetero and Commitment Adverse.
ReplyDelete*There was a really attractive woman, fawning and slobbering over her 'prince': a guy with a pair of clown-pants hanging down under his ass and his hat on backwards and smelling like he hadn't been near a bar of soap since his last 30 days' in jail. Anyway, they got off at the same stop as I did; and Wonder-Boy stopped and stood in front of the schedule for a full minute. I was wondering what his problem was, since he was standing in everybody's way. Finally, she went over to him, and then I realized---he couldn't read it!*
ReplyDeleteClearly an 'alpha'...
There really does seem to be something deranged about American women above all other women in the Anglosphere. Their early-20s attraction to retarded ass-hats seems to be a personal 'statement' of some kind, perhaps intended to 'diss' parental expectations... though perhaps males from elsewhere in the Anglosphere can provide similar examples.
*Whether there is a Male Marriage Strike I could not say, but rather suspect that it is Women rather than Men who are becoming Marriage Adverse - that is of course quite apart from those who are Hetero and Commitment Adverse.*
ReplyDeleteDoubtless way over half of the Anglosphere's female population...
Rookh:
ReplyDeleteI agree about American women, except their tendencies don't seem to subside even when they're out of their twenties. Usually in their thirties they marry some desperate mangina, fleece him for everything in a divorce, and then become 'cougars'; going after the same kinds of bums they had when they were younger.
I have to keep from busting out in laughter every time I read one of these 'Gamers' spouting their theories about how strength, confidence, and intelligence really appeals to American women. Anybody who believes that should scan through a few women's magazines and look at pictures of the 'studs' these women gush over. Most of them either look like waiters in a gay nightclub or street-corner drug dealers.
I tend to think that US women's proclivity for these losers stems from our culture's constant mantra that women are superior to men. The women seem so obsessed with proving themselves superior to men that they're driven to relationships with males who are so dysfunctional that the disparity between them is obvious to anyone.
@Ian B:
ReplyDelete"A lot of it seems to have degenerated into a male copy of feminism."
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT!
THANK YOU WHO EVER YOU ARE!
@Rookh:
ReplyDelete"This might seem a bit controversial as a suggestion, but I do sometimes wonder whether some men in the Anglosphere adopt homosexuality as a 'lifestyle choice' because it guarantees them plenty of sex. Heterosexuality in most conditions does not secure anything like as many sexual encounters (even for high status males), if the florid anecdotes of gay men like Fry are anything to go by. In London, for example, many of the parks and public amenities are monopolized by homosexual males seeking casual sex, such that many citizens shun such places after dark. I have no doubt that most major cities in Britain, Australia and America are much the same.
As anonymous says, Anglo-American women are feted as 'owners' of sex and this inevitably means 'sex-slave' status for males who heed the 'advice' of Tommy Fleming, David Futrelle, the 'PUA Hate' crowd and other Anglo White Knights. Not only is this status intrinsically demeaning, it also results in very little recreational sex - hence, the attraction of homosexuality."
=============
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!
You forgot to mention the transexuals, however.
There are many straight males who don't want to turn gay, but they have realized that that refusal leaves them out in the cold.
So, some have opted for a compromise.
They turn to the T-Girls. If they can't get a real female, they'll go for a FAKE one.
It's a difficult method for many straight males to take, but believe me, it's getting more and more popular by the day.
Why do you think the Feminists hate the T-girls so much? You would think these psychobitches would be HAPPY that we eeeeeevil straight men are leaving their oh-so-innocent sisters alone but they're not.
They know the T-girls are a source of competition and women, as much as they despise male sexuality (face it, men, they do), they certainly LOOOOOVE having Pussy Power over men.
The T-girls (like pornography, prostitution, and all advances of virtual sex and sex robots) threaten to take this power away from them and are seen as a THREAT.