#I’m trying to scope out gender and my sexuality relative to women

[chimerakeys]

Being non-binary transmasc is my biggest struggle because what if I wanted to date a butch and she said no because I call myself a guy

[treehugginglibrarian]

Social Justice Bedroom Warriors

Social Justice Warriors need to stay out of people’s intimate lives, unless they’re personally invited in, because they’re starting to sound a bit like incels.  

Recently, a member of one of my childfree on-line forums posed a question regarding dating and mental health, being unsure whether it was acceptable for her to bow out of a potential relationship because the gentleman in question suffered from depression and anxiety. While most people, including those with one or both of those health issues, were quick to reassure her that she never has to date anyone she doesn’t want to, and she owes no one an explanation, others were less supportive. One entire sub-thread of this mess ended up dedicated to the notion that, if she did not date this man, she was an “ableist cunt.” That’s not how this works. THAT’S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS. This also isn’t the first time I’ve seen this argument made.

As a population, we’ve gotten pretty good at reminding straight, white, men (and black men, on occasion) that women do not owe them anything. We don’t owe them our time, our phone number, a date, or sex. We do not owe them anything simply because they were born with a dick and took a fancy to us. It’s becoming increasingly clear, however, that the only people who don’t appear to be owed sex or relationships are straight, white, men. 

On multiple occasions during the course of my adult life, I have been called a “racist” by a black man who wanted my phone number and to whom I did not want to give it. Sometimes I didn’t want to give it to him because it was obvious he wasn’t my type. Sometimes I was just disinterested. Sometimes I was taken. In all instances, my rejection was not met merely with annoyance, but with a charge of “racism.” As though their blackness entitled them to my time, even if their maleness left me disinterested. As though a failure to be interested on my part could only be attributed to an aversion to brown skin, rather than an aversion to them, as an individual. I never thought much of these instances because I have, in fact, dated men of color before. As a child, my first Hollywood crush was on a black man. As an adult, about the only human I would consider leaving my wife for is a black woman (I jest. I would never leave my wife. But if I did it would be for Jessica Williams). My disinterest in these men was not because I am incapable of attraction to black bodies. I just wasn’t interested in those men; a fact they were quite offended by and quite willing to project over.  

Shortly after coming off of active duty, I got called “fat phobic” for the first time. It wouldn’t be the last time and, despite the general definition of oppressive hatred, at no time has this name been lobbed at me because I’ve been treating those who are overweight as though they are “less than.” I’m not scared of fat people. I don’t hate fat people. In fact, unless you are an overweight person with whom I am personally acquainted, I probably have effectively zero feeling about you or your excess weight. If you’re a fat person with whom I’m personally acquainted, my feelings towards you will have little to do with your weight and significantly more to do with your personality and your work ethic. You do you, boo, just don’t be a mean person or a shitty coworker along the way. That said, I acknowledge a lack of physical attraction on my part when it comes to overweight people. Part of it is that I’m just not attracted to the body type. Part of it is that I am an insanely active person, and I do make certain assumptions about other people’s lives and activity levels based upon their body types. I am going to assume that someone who is 150 pounds overweight is not going to be compatible with who I am as a person. My unwillingness to date people who fit this criteria, my disinterest in having sex with a body type that does not appeal to me, is apparently rooted in a deep and unacknowledged phobia of fat people. I got told by multiple women that unless I’m willing to force an attraction to fat people, I am fat phobic. How I treat these people out of the sheets is completely irrelevant. 

A little research showed that fatphobia was hardly the only politically correct pile of shite making its way into bedrooms. White people who won’t date outside their race are, with some level of regularity, told they’re racist. Refusing to date someone from another country, culture, or religious sect is now deemed xenophobic. Even refusing to date someone who had children or wildly different political views than your own was, somehow, deemed inappropriate. Even as society has been trying to drill into people’s heads that no one, NO ONE, is owed a relationship, that same society is doing an excellent job of telling us that we’re not allowed to say “no” to certain people. Saying “no” to marginalized or “othered” individuals is no longer a simple declination of sex, and is now an act of discrimination. Their marginalization, apparently, entitles them to both my time and my body. 

Through it all, sexism is a charge that has largely gone underutilized amongst most groups. Gay men are never called sexist for refusing to fuck women, and straight people are never called sexist or homophobic for not being queer. Lesbians, however, haven’t been granted this same dignity. (As usual, bisexuality is ignored. For once, the bi’s of the world are pleased about this). Probably because the idea that sexual pleasure can exist outside the scope of a penis is, for many, wildly inconceivable.     

For as long as lesbianism has been a thing, people with penises attempting to convince lesbians that said lesbians do, in fact, enjoy dicks have been a thing. For most of history, those people have been humans presenting as straight men, who apparently can’t conceive of a woman not wanting any dick at all, let alone their dick. In more recent years however, a vocal cohort of trans women, many pre-operative and still possessing intact penises, have taken to outing lesbians who refuse to date them as “transphobic.” As though one’s bedroom is an arena in which our efforts at establishing equality for all can be adequately assessed. 

Here’s the thing, a lack of attraction to a particular characteristic or a disinterest in having a particular characteristic in your bed or yourself, is not a form of discrimination. Why? Because absolutely no one, no matter how disenfranchised they may be by the rest of society, is ever owed personal time, relationships, or sexual intimacy from or by anyone else. They’re just not. Lesbians don’t owe transwomen sex or relationships, and they don’t owe them an explanation for why they’re not interested in these things. They are not suffering from a case of discriminatory genital preferences, because sexual proclivities are not preferences- they are ingrained parts of our beings. 

Do you really think straight women wouldn’t make the transition to vaginas if it was as simple as changing their genital preferences? The existence of straight women is proof positive that basically everything about our sexual attractions are beyond the scope of our control. 

While we can control whether or not we act on these attractions, control over what we are attracted to is pretty fucking limited. Do you really think pedophiles enjoy being pedophiles? If you do, I’d recommend reading an interview with one. It’s pretty eye-opening, if you can get past the part where you’re reading an interview with a pedophile. And all of them make quite clear that acting on their attraction to children is within their control, but the attraction itself is not. A fact that tends to leave them shunned by society whether they act on them or not, and pretty fucking miserable for obvious reasons. The list of things I’m not attracted to is relatively long and, while the list itself is mutable because additions have been made over the years, I have never found myself attracted to something that had once previously repulsed me. 

You will not change someone’s attractions simply by couching their sexual disinterest in social justice warrior language and attempting to shame them into being attracted to you. 

All you’ll do is piss them off and lose an ally. If you don’t want to date someone who is black, white, or purple, you don’t have to. If you don’t want to date someone with a particular set of genitalia, you don’t have, no matter what their external presentation is. If you don’t want to date a particular gender, you don’t have to. You don’t have to date people with mental illness, with food restrictions, with terminal cancer, or with webbed feet. You don’t have to date fat people, skinny people, or exercise obsessed people. You don’t have to date rich people or poor people, the fashion forward or the fashion oblivious. You don’t have to let anything other than your attraction to that particular person, or lack thereof, determine whether you date another person. And if you don’t want to date anybody, at all, you don’t have to. And you never, ever, ever owe them any explanation for why you are not interested. In fact, an argument could be made that you’re better off not giving them a reason.  

Get your shamey social justice warrior bullshit out of our bedrooms. NOW. 

No one owes you anything. 

[krinsbez]

GI Joe: Remixed, the Sex Lives of Cobra High Command

Yeah, this is a somewhat awkward topic; our discussions can get pretty wide-ranging. I blame the combination of the Baroness and my desire to be egalitarian.

COBRA COMMANDER

CC is celibate, firstly because he's too paranoid to allow anyone be physically intimate with him, and secondly because (to quote @rk-striker-jk-5) "in his head, he's still married to Billy's mother...In his own twisted head, they're still married. And he will not break those vows. He's even still got his wedding ring tucked away somewhere."

THE CRIMSON TWINS

Tomax and Xamot are straight, and thus, rumors to the contrary, are not having sex with each other. That said, they do make a point of sharing any woman they have sex with. (They’re not comfortable being vulnerable when they don’t have each other around for backup) That quirk aside, they have a fairly conventional sex life for billionaire playboy businessmen; they date models and starlets, have affairs with other men's wives, enjoy the company of high-class escorts and strippers, and routinely flirt with and/or seduce various female subordinates. Note that their idea of flirtation often segues into sexual harassment, and their idea of seduction often involves coercion, but again, that's fairly conventional for what they pretend to be. The main departure, again asides from the sharing, is that, when they feel a need to re-assure themselves that they haven't gotten soft, they will commit some act of heinous violence, which sometimes will be rape. Though that's not really a sex thing. Additional note: -Interestingly, their sexual fantasies tend to involve female Joes, and to a lesser extent, high-ranking Cobras; in particular Lady Jaye and the Baroness.

DESTRO

Destro will only sleep with a woman if A: she is willing to make a commitment, B: that he can imagine her as the mother of the next Laird of Castle Destro*. That's not to say he expects every relationship with a woman to go to that far, but he isn't going to take any chances. Needless to say, he was smitten by the Baroness early on, but it took awhile before she was willing to accept criterion A. *Yes, that includes Zarana. She is beautiful, intelligent, ambitious, ruthless, witty, deadly, has the strength of will to keep the Dreadnoks in line, all of her relatives are also badass, and she understands the importance of family. True, while she lacks class and social graces, those can be taught; in fact the possibility of playing Henry Higgins was part of the appeal. Of course, since he was carrying a torch for the Baroness, and her primary interests in the relationship, asides from the obvious, were twitting the Baroness and trying to convince herself she wasn't in love with a Joe, things didn't work out. Additional notes: -Despite being picky about the women he sleeps with, Destro isn't always as careful as he should be; in his youth he fathered an illegitimate child, Alexander. Their relationship is...complicated (the character was introduced in Devil's Due Publishing's comics, so I'm not familiar with him, and we haven't had much discussion about him). -The persistent rumors that Destro has been with Zarana and the Baroness at the same time are false, since Zarana can't stand the Baroness, and the feeling is mostly mutual. Of three of them, it's the Baroness who finds said rumor least offensive; Zarana is offended at the idea that she needs help to please her man, while Destro is outraged that the minions are discussing his personal life. Meanwhile the Baroness A: believes that monogamy is an obsolete bourgeois concept and B: is European.

THE BARONESS

The Baroness is about 80-90% hetero; she'll sleep with another woman if she's particularly attractive, but in general she prefers men. As one would expect from someone as passionate as the Baroness, she's got a pretty healthy, uh, appetite, and is not shy about satisfying it, which means that yes, she's usually the seducer rather than the seduced. She also, as stated above, considers monogamy to be obsolete bourgeoisie nonsense and love a weakness, so she uh, has gotten around a bit. That said, she's basically a romantic at heart, so she's more of a "has lots of short-lived but really intense relationships" kinda gal than a love-em-and-leave-em type. Granted, if a man doesn't meet her expectations she will drop 'em quick; CF the Crimson Twins, whom she got with because they're hot, fit, identical twin acrobats, but found them to be low-class, egotistical, boorish weirdoes. And so, despite the sex being pretty amazing, that didn't last long. WRT said expectations, this is where it gets complicated, because they're kinda contradictory. First and foremost, her ideal man is as strong and dangerous as she is, if not more so....BUUUT she also wants a man whom she can control. You can perhaps see the problem. Now, the Baroness is, of course, arrogant and prideful, so she generally assumes that there is no one as badass as herself of either gender, and is willing to settle for man who approach her level; hence, for example Major Bludd. BTW, note that, in that case, the fact that he was both married and famously devoted to his wife made him particularly attractive; she likes a challenge. But eventually she got bored with him and he became increasingly guilty about the whole "adultery" thing, so yeah. It was, at least, a relatively amicable break-up, and they retain a good working relationship with a great deal of mutual respect. Anyways, she was, of course, smitten with Destro almost immediately. This loss of emotional control terrified her, and she spent an extensive period of time denying her feelings, though she insisted that the issue was Destro's insistence on commitment. She also genuinely couldn't make up her mind whether his being able to resist her charms sufficiently to insist on conditions was a turn-off or turn-on, owing to the aforementioned "wants a man who's as strong as her, but weak enough she can control" thing. Eventually, she got to the point that she realized that A: what she really wanted was less a man she could control and more a man who wouldn't try to control her, and B: Destro loved her enough to be that, and they're relationship has been fairly blissful ever since, the occasional backstab aside. Additional notes: -When she was in college, the Baroness briefly dated a young American from a blue-collar background, partially as an expression of her Marxism, partially due to a desire to annoy her parents; when he realized she was interested in him only as an American of blue-collar origins, he broke up with her. She has entirely forgotten his name and face, and has no idea that he's now the Joe codenamed Steeler. -At one point, the Baroness did make a token attempt at trying to get along with Zarana, mostly because she wanted to sleep with her. Since Zarana is 100% straight, this did not work out, and is an additional reason for the Baroness' hatred of the Dreadnok.

KRAKE

Krake may be gay, I haven't decided. Regardless, despite what the rumors say, he isn't sleeping with Savane. Actually, he doesn't sleep with anyone. He gets his rocks off and then either leaves or makes who ever he just had sex with leave, depending. He may not be as paranoid as CC, but he's still pretty paranoid. Obviously, he doesn't do relationships. He also doesn't feel like wasting time and energy on seduction; when he needs some, ah, relief, he uses prostitutes. Or comfort women or whatever the male equivalent would be if we go with him being gay. He's not picky. Just as long as he remains in control and there are no emotions involved whatsoever.

DR. MINDBENDER

Despite the common rumor, Dr. Mindbender isn't asexual, although it's true he isn't attracted to humans. Despite the other common rumor, he isn't a sadist, even though he has been known to get aroused performing horrific medical experiments on unwilling subjects. No, what Dr. Mindbender is into is simply this: doing science. Or, perhaps more accurately, SCIENCE!!

SERPENTOR

Unsurprisingly given what he is, the Cobra Emperor is bisexual (his gene donors being a wide mix of sexualities), albeit with a slight preference for women. Given the kind of people he’s made from, it should also not be surprising that his sexual appetite is quite voracious, and rather...omnivorous; it’s not that he doesn’t have standards, but that his ideas of what’s sexy are very broad. He’s not above rape, but he prefers his conquests to be willing, if only for ego purposes, and is an exceptionally skillful seducer.

He is primarily interested purely in satisfying said appetite, though he’s not averse to the idea of something more serious were he to find the right woman. Which happens to be Pythona.

VENOMOUS MAXIMUS

Like all V-Troops, VM was specifically designed to have no interest in or ability to engage in sex; Dr. Mindbender didn’t want them breeding. That said, his ideas of what is and is not sexy is more-or-less the same as those of his genetic progenitor, Gen. Hawk.

Cobra-Lan sexuality does not work the same way human sexuality does, and therefore is beyond the scope of this article; it will be discussed when I get around to collating an article about Cobra-La.

[ansu-gurleht]

So, what is the technological advancement in your world? Is magic common or rather somewhat rare? Are some species more likely to be magical than others? Classical distinction between good and evil or more complicated than that? How about healthcare? And what do the people believe in, many Gods, Religions, maybe Major Religions? What about love? Special Cuisine? (Sorry, many questions)

okay let’s get CRACKIN! gonna put in a read more here for people who don’t care, b/c this is about to get LENGTHY

technologically we’re not too far ahead! maybe think early renaissance europe? no gunpowder, tho’ we have magic gun staves. we got crossbows, siege weaponry, and also magical prosthetic limbs! a lot of “technological” advances here are b/c of magic, but i don’t think that makes them any less valid.

magic is common enough that everyone knows it exists, but not everyone knows its scope. somebody (esp. like, a human in a rural village) might be surprised to meet somebody who can use magic, but they wouldn’t really doubt that it’s real magic. and also, there’s a bit of mystery in exactly what magic can do, how much there is in the world. think lotr, although in practice, my magic is much more of a hard magic system. (see sandersons laws of magic for what i mean by that!)

the three sentient races in my world (orcs, humans, and elves) can all practice magic to varying degrees. orcs tend to be born with an innate gift, and if you aren’t, then you either can’t do magic, or you can barely do magic with great effort. humans don’t tend to have innate ability, unless they have an innate gift for studying. b/c studying magic is the only way for humans to be able to learn and practice it. you might consider orcs to be d&d sorcerers, whereas humans are wizards.

elves….are a different story. they’re ALL inherently magical. their entire BEING is magic. that’s not to say they’re not flesh and blood, real people - they just treat magic like breathing. that doesn’t mean they’re all wizards or sorcerers or shaman, but they have the best “starting point,” so to speak. orcs have the worst “starting point” in that some of them can’t practice it at all, but orcs ALSO have they highest potential of power.

good vs. evil is absolutely not a thing - this setting really focuses on the grey aspects. it’s important to note - my original premise for this setting was, “what if a huge good vs evil battle like in lotr happened, except the ‘evil’ won?” naturally, orcs aren’t inherently “evil,” they were just slaves to a relatively “evil” force, the trolls. i won’t elaborate on the trolls too much, since even in my head i’m purposefully keeping them somewhat vague, but they were a powerful race who created the orcs as slave-warriors to try to destroy and conquer the world. but then the orcs won and realized being slaves wasn’t great, and that they didn’t like what they’d been made to do, and so they killed their gods, their makers.

there’s another force in the world, one which you MIGHT could consider a “truer” evil than even the trolls, but i won’t elaborate on them. spoilers ;P

(as a small note on my races: i’m using rather familiar names for them, like “orcs” and “elves” and “trolls,” but they’re really very different from what you’d expect. i shan’t elaborate on how, esp. wrt elves, b/c, again, spoilers.)

orcs are a very communal race, and always seek to protect and take care of their sick, weak, and disabled. i’ve already mentioned magical prostheses (orcs, esp. those who regularly fight, tend to lose limbs a lot :P), but magic and traditional medicinal cures are also used to tend for the sickly. the elderly and infirm are cared for and protected as well.

humans are a bit less caring, and esp. in communities w/o orc rule or influence, sometimes even discard the sick, elderly, and disabled. they tend to excuse it as being barely a dent in their population, b/c, well…..humans fuck like rabbits. that’s the primary reason that the orcs and trolls couldn’t completely destroy them. they destroyed their cities and homes, slaughtered them by the millions, but there were always those hiding in the forests and jungles, who just refused to die.

b/c of their magicalness, elves rarely NEED to worry about healthcare. magical healing and remedies are either something anybody can do, or something somebody down the street can do. it’s a non-issue to them.

ooh, boy, religion. humans believe in either a vague almighty God, or a vague almighty Pantheon of gods (possibly derived from old elvish religion), but it’s really not very well established. it really depends on the place, b/c a lot of places developed different religions due to their isolation after the war. 

orcs, and a lot of the humans under their rule/influence, have a very flexible system. they are ancestor-worshipers with some animist aspects. they also worship certain primordial elemental spirits (who they also consider ancestors) of the four elemental planes (earth, air, water, fire). it’s a bit odd to call them “planes”. they’re really like four pieces to the puzzle that is the world; they overlap with one another and their interactions create the world as we know it.

anyways, some orcs tend to have cults devoted to specific proposed ancestors, certain sacred sites, as well as some of the elemental spirits. it depends really on the specific culture - there’s a lot of variety.

elves worship “star gods” who speak to them (and only them) from the heavens, and also send their “emissaries” in the form of “dragon gods” to rule over/protect/guide the elven people. it’s quite a bit more complicated than that, but a lot of stuff about elves is spoilery, so that’s all you get.

ah, love. i’ll give you this: love for humans isn’t exciting. it’s about par for the course either in the real world, or in other fantasy worlds.

orcs, though? it’s very different. there’s not really “soulmates” in the sense of exclusive partners throughout your life. sure, some might be pretty attached and stick together, but it’s not exclusive, and not an end-all-be-all. gender/sex is irrelevant when it comes to orc love/mating. if they like somebody, and that somebody loves them back, they’re gonna fuck. sometimes publicly, but they try to keep it somewhat private, if not always quiet.

it works mostly off of hormones/pheromones. it’s worth noting that orcs age very differently from humans: orcs reach the size of an adult human by age 3 or 4. they reach full orc adulthood by age 8 or so. most orcs live until about age 40, rarely longer.

anyways, once an orc reaches adult age, their reproductive glands responsible for producing and receiving sexy-times pheromones are fully developed. (it makes it a bit difficult to determine exactly what “adult age” is for orcs, since some orcs finish developing by age 6, while others don’t finish until they’re 12, or at all. northern, “civilized” orcs tend to assume an age of 8.) 

for orcs, “rape” is basically an incomprehensible concept. orcs can literally only fuck if they are receiving the same pheromones they’re putting out for somebody. (this is why human-orc relationships are very, very rare, even not considering stigma; a human is just not equipped, from an orc’s point of view, to have sex.) 

way back when, during the big ol’ war, humans and elves spread rumors about the orcs “raping” and pillaging, but what they were really talking about was post-battle orc orgies. these were (and still are, occasionally) very real things. the adrenaline and excitement of battle, as well as the closeness with your comrades that results, tends to result in a lot of orcs getting really horny for each other. this was also effective, especially from the trolls’ point of view, in replenishing losses from the battle by reproducing. so after battles, humans within earshot miles around could hear, uh. a lot of orcs getting it on.

elves are different. obviously. when are they not? they DEFINITELY have life-partners, although sometimes multiple at a time. elvish culture is highly female-driven, and as a result, the most common er, “configuration” for an elvish couple is a lesbian couple. men are also usually expected to be together, b/c a lot of them have a hard time getting with women, due to their lower status. women will have multiple female life-partners, and typically only one male life-partner, which is how they reproduce. (elves are also very romantic, except not so much usually in “hetero” relationships. those guys are just there for babies, more or less.) it’s typically sort of a “competition” among elvish females to see who can pick the least deplorable man to mate with, just as it is for men to try to elevate their status by mating with powerful women.

one quick note on “gender.” humans, culturally, tend to be pretty cisnormative, i guess? there are men, and women, and transgender people are generally considered, er, not good. except in certain northern, orc-dominated territories, where nonbinary people are often considered to be almost as great and important as their genderless orc superiors.

orcs, as i’ve said, just don’t have a concept of gender, nor do their “sexes” look different from one another. there are no secondary sexual characteristics, and their primary sexual characteristics aren’t immediately obvious. 

elves consider there to be three genders : women, men, and “something in between”, as they refer to it. that third gender is sort of a catch-all for noncomformative elves, and have a sort of middle-of-the-road social status: not as high as women, but not as low as men. 

okay, last question! special cuisine…..i haven’t actually thought much of this! which is good, b/c i need to. orcs like to use a lot of spices and herbs, either that they gather in the wilds themselves, or grow in small gardens. they also have a special fermented alcoholic drink which only orcs enjoy, that gives a sort of energy boost, kinda like caffeine. humans tend to eat what they get, and tend to shy away from too many flavors. elves eat…uh….magical food i guess. fish? lots of fish probably. 

[briefcommaqueer]

Ep 8: “through science to justice,” Magnus Hirschfeld, Weimar Germany, and the Nazis

Hi everyone, today’s video is going to be a little longer than usual because I’m trying to fit in a whole bunch of things, like the first gay rights group, the flourishing of a gay subculture in Germany in the early 20th century, and the persecution of LGBT folks during World War II. It’s a lot, and I’m going to try and serve the totality of it as best I can, but this is just a brief overview. I wanted to keep these things together because I think each part of this story informs the ones around it. [Just FYI, my German pronunciation is terrible, but I’m going to give it my best shot.] In 1897 a group of people in Berlin formed the Wissenshaftlich-humanitäres Komittee [or the Scientific Humanitarian Committee] to lobby against anti-gay laws in Germany, including Paragraph 175 of the Criminal Code, which outlawed sex between men. Led by the sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, the committee was the first gay rights group in the world. Coming a generation or so after the coining of the word “homosexuality,” and the work of the first gay rights activists like Karl Ulrichs and Karl Maria Kertbeny (see episode one for details), Hirschfeld was at the vanguard of those using the most up-to-date science to fight against societal and legal attitudes that treated homosexuality as deviant and criminal. He wasn’t alone in this, but he was probably the most prominent scientist working on these issues at the time. In fact, he was sometimes promoted as the “Einstein of sex.” Hirschfeld was the Scientific Humanitarian Committee’s first chair, and the committee was emblematic of his motto: “through science to justice.” Like Ulrichs and Kertbeny before him, argued that sexuality was an innate trait rather than a chosen one, and by this reasoning it was cruel and pointless to criminalize same-sex activity. To give you an idea of the kind of things that he did with the committee Dr. Hirschfeld often served as an expert witness for the trials of men charged under Paragraph 175, arguing for leniency in the courts. In doing so, he often succeeded in getting the sentences reduced for his client. For his part Max Spohr, One of Hirschfeld’s partners in the committee, involved himself in the activist push by publishing sexological studies and popular gay literature. With titles like Die Transvestiten (or The Transvestites), these books spread the committee’s ideals across Europe. Germany was uniquely suited to this tactic, given that censorship laws at the time were fairly liberal. Despite this leniency, Spohr and other publishers occasionally came into conflict with the government, such as when he published homosexual and anarchist Adolf Brand’s literary journal Der Eigene, which had explicitly gay content. This and other propaganda from the committee turned sentiment among many of Germany’s elite against anti-gay laws. Many of the texts published by Spohr’s press included both academic journals and longer scientific papers from Magnus Hirschfeld. Dr. Hirschfeld founded an institute in 1919 to further work in the field of sexology, or the study of human sexual behavior. Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft) occupied a large building in Central Berlin, where Germans could go for help with a number of sexually-related issues, from birth control to gender transition services, and which housed a museum devoted to human sexuality. Under Hirschfeld, the committee also circulated a petition among elites to urge the government under Kaiser Wilhelm II to repeal the anti-sodomy law. This petition even made it to the floor of the Reichstag (or the parliament) in 1898, though the statute was not overturned. The committee and other rights groups continued pushing this agenda even after the Wilhelmine government gave way to the Weimar Republic after WWI. A vote in 1929 promised to reform the law (activists called the reform “one step forward and two steps back), though this too fell through. Hirschfeld resigned his chairmanship that same year following this last attempt. So, what was gay life like in Germany at this time? Around the turn of the 19th century, police in Berlin began an informal policy of monitoring but not raiding establishments that catered to homosexuals. This allowed a gay nightlife to flourish in the city. By the end of the 1920s, Berlin was well known throughout Europe as a center of homosexual life, especially for those who were well off. Clubs and bars that served gay clientele and featured cross-dressing entertainers were even established enough to warrant guided tours. It wasn’t all wine and roses, however. Despite relative freedom, homosexuality was still a punishable offense, and thousands ended up in prison as a result of Paragraph 175. Moreover, the Berlin police position of non-intervention didn’t really extend to the rest of Germany. The openness of Berlin’s attitude towards homosexuality was always tenuous at best, and relied upon a fairly liberal society. After the Great Depression hit, and the collapse of the German economy on top of crippling reparations imposed by the victors of WWI, the previous open conditions gave way. By the time the National Socialists (or the Nazis) seized power, an atmosphere of fear, anxiety, and plain old xenophobia had made it much easier for those in power to scapegoat marginalized groups within Germany. Despite the previous promise of the reform movement, Paragraph 175 continued into the Third Reich. After seizing power, the Nazis began campaigns against those they deemed “degenerate,” and much like leftists, Jews, persons with disabilities, and Romany, thousands of homosexuals were sent to concentration camps. These prisoners wore a pink badge in the shape of a triangle, marking their crime as homosexuality. This pink triangle was revived as a symbol by gay rights groups later in the century, most notably by ACT UP during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. Gay prisoners went through the same torture, privation, and cruelty as others in the camps. By the end of World War II, only about 40% of those who had been sent to concentration camps because of their sexuality had survived. And yet for many, even liberation came with a cost. Both governments in divided Germany maintained anti-sodomy laws on their books well after the war, and even re-imprisoned those who had been released. East Germany made amendments to the law beginning in the 1950s, and overturned it in the 80s. West Germany amended their law in the 1960s, though full repeal didn’t occur until after reunification in the 1990s. As for Magnus Hirschfeld, he was away on a speaking tour when the Nazi party took power. He never returned to Germany, and died in exile in 1935. The Nazis sacked his institute in May 1933, destroying the sexological museum and burning the institute library, including Hirschfeld’s research and the research of his colleagues. Being a Jew, and a reported homosexual, as well as a liberal sexologist, Hirschfeld was a powerful symbol for them to attack, and it was unlikely he would have survived returning to his country. You’ll notice that women are excluded from this narrative thread. In large part, it’s because Paragraph 175 only criminalized same-sex activity between men, and because the scope of Nazi repression of lesbians was substantially different, tending towards circumscribing the role of women as mothers and wives rather than by outright imprisonment. Hirschfeld, for his part, welcomed women into the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, and worked on feminist issues of the time like decriminalizing abortion. Others in the same movement, like Adolf Brand, tended towards dismissing women and lionized masculinity as the greatest ideal as part of the männerbund (or the male association) movement. Now, I don’t know how many you have run across the idea of Nazis as being gay, but it is something I’ve witnessed personally. To be sure, some of the earliest Nazi leaders, like head of the Brownshirts Ernst Röhm, were gay, but the power of these leaders within the Nazi government was short-lived. Röhm himself one of many assassinated in 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives. There is no doubt in my mind that the Nazis were virulently homophobic, and that’s where I’ll leave that idea. Just one last point, although this video is already quite full. Hirschfeld’s approach, and the approach of the committee, necessarily left out a lot of people who were adversely affected by anti-gay laws, primarily the working class and sex workers, although those are often one and the same. For this and other reasons the movement as a whole broke down along ideological and class lines, and it’s possible that effectiveness suffered as a result. It’s taken me a while to figure out how to approach this episode, because I see real parallels between what I’m discussing here and what our landscape looks like today in the US. That being said, I don’t want to give the impression that I think the election of Donald Trump is exactly analogous as the rise of Nazism in Germany. There are, however, a lot of troubling similarities, and I’m not holding out hope that things will get better soon for marginalized people in the US. I’m passionate about history because there’s nothing new under the sun. What I’ve been trying to do throughout this series, whether consciously or unconsciously, has been to illustrate the strategies and tactics by which people have tried to foment change. Sometimes, like in our first episode, it’s by defining the issue, by giving us vocabulary to talk about it. Sometimes it’s through spontaneous (and physical) resistance, like with Compton’s cafeteria in episode 6. Occasionally it happens within the system; more often it comes from outside. Change doesn’t always stick, and it’s never easy. Progress doesn’t always win, and that kind of sucks. So what can we do? We can pay up for people whose work has helped us out. With money if you can, by signal boosting if you can’t. Support your local library. I wouldn’t have access to most of the materials I’ve used in this series if it weren’t for the library. There’s a million things to do, they’re just a search away. There’s so much more out there than I’ve managed to fit in this video, so don’t just take my word for it. Take a look at the resources in the description, and there’s a link to the transcript as well. You can follow me on Twitter, you can follow the show on Tumblr, and don’t forget to subscribe. See you next time. So what can we do? We can pay up for people whose work has helped us out. With money if you can, by signal boosting if you can’t. Support your local library. I wouldn’t have access to most of the materials I’ve used in this series if it weren’t for the library. There’s a million things to do, they’re just a search away. There’s so much more out there than I’ve managed to fit in this video, so don’t just take my word for it. Take a look at the resources in the description, and there’s a link to the transcript as well. You can follow me on Twitter, you can follow the show on Tumblr, and don’t forget to subscribe. See you next time.

Watch: https://briefcommaqueer.tumblr.com/post/159316183370/resources

[scripturehomosexuality]

Editorial: #MeToo, Same-Sex Activity, and How The Two Are Related

For many months, even as I was writing on this blog, I have been closely watching the #MeToo movement sweeping through the U.S. At first, I was keeping out of it. Though I supported it initially, its original purpose wasn’t related to this blog’s purpose, so I didn’t intend to remark on it.

However, things have changed so much, and the stakes have been raised so high, this male writer feels compelled to say something on it.

Now, before I go any further, I need to make the following perfectly clear: I do not hate women. I do not support the rape or sexual assault of any woman (or man), under any circumstances. Rape and sexual assault is always inexcusable. I’m sure any longtime reader of this blog will know that I do not endorse misogyny. In fact, the Additional Links page will unequivocally show that I support both female sexuality and male sexuality.

As such, if you disagree with what I’m about to say, please do not flood my inbox with condemnatory messages. If you wish to comment, please use the Discus plugin at the end of this post, which allows guest and pseudonymous commenting.

As I said before, sexual assault and rape horrifies me, so I initially supported the #MeToo movement. However, as November 2017 came along, I began to have reservations. To me, it was beginning to feel like a general witchhunt. To give #MeToo the benefit of the doubt, I kept quiet and kept watching its development.

Now, it seems my apprehension was justified. More men and women find the movement increasingly troubling. We are all disturbed by its apparent inability to make distinctions. Sophomoric behavior and mild harassment are being equated to rape and sexual assault. Due process is being skipped in favor of swift justice, as accusations are now enough to impose severe punishment. The fact that women are human beings too, and thus are equally capable of fabrication, is becoming too taboo to suggest.

By no means am I defending the rape and sexual assault of women. My point is that, in trying to end those harmful actions, we’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not every problem is a nail that must be hammered, which the #MeToo movement doesn’t seem to realize.

The crescendo reached a climax this week, as comedian Aziz Ansari was accused of sexual assault. What was the problem? The Ansari story was quite ordinary to most people. To them, it was too ordinary to merit public shaming.

Because of all this, I can confidently say that the #MeToo movement has been hijacked. Rape and sexual assault are now a minimal focus of this movement. Right now, it’s focused on transforming our sexual culture into one that is punitively and brutally governed by certain women. It seems bent on creating a system where, solely by a woman’s whim, an encounter caused by mixed messages becomes punishable sexual assault.

Other writers are reaching similar conclusions. In fact, a few writers openly say that we’re in a full blown sex panic. In a column for the New York Daily News, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers said “a new puritanism seems to be ascendant,” where “suddenly, office Christmas parties and happy hours are under a cloud.”

As such, there is a vital point being missed in the debate - the #MeToo movement is inextricably linked to developments involving “homosexuality”. If we are serious in analysing what caused the movement, and where it is headed, we must consider this indispensable history.

Firstly, the #MeToo movement owes its existence to the recent history of “homosexuality”. In the United States, the current definition includes all same-sex acts, with “gender inversion” an important but secondary component. At this point, participation in any same-sex act counts as “homosexuality”.

As much as that definition seems established, it’s actually pretty new. Before the second half of the 20th century, “homosexuality” was more defined by “gender inversion” than behavior. Engagement in same-sex activity didn’t automatically merit a “homosexual” identity. From the 1930s onward, a man felt compelled to identify as “homosexual” if

he was primarily or exclusively attracted to men (which was considered a form of “gender inversion”)

his mannerisms parodied those of women

Even then, true “homosexual” men were considered to be effeminate.

We must also remember that back then, sex was mainly defined by penetration. Thus, if the contact was non-penetrative, it wasn’t “sex” per se. After World War II, anal sex started becoming more common in the “homosexual” identified community. However, among non-”homosexual” men, the contact usually was non-penetrative.

As a result of these factors, same-sex activity was relatively common for non-”homosexual” men up until the mid-20th century. It didn’t automatically require a new identity, and since they avoided anal, their contact didn’t count as “sex” for most people. As a result, the rate of premarital opposite-sex contact was also relatively low. Since they were having sexual satisfaction with fellow men, contact with women wasn’t as necessary. 

That began changing with the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969. The revolt caused massive upheaval in both the “homosexual” and non-”homosexual” worlds. Now, “homosexual” men could now be validly masculine and effeminate, as shown by the explosion of the Castro Clone. What those masculine and feminine men shared in common - their engagement in same-sex activity - increasingly became the basis of the new “gay” identity.

This wasn’t all. From its slow start after WWII, anal sex became widespread in the “gay” community by the mid-1970s. Up until that time, and despite its increasing popularity, anal still had a bad reputation among “gay” men. Then, as the late 1970s arrived, a cultural seismic shift happened. Anal soon became the ultimate fulfillment of “gay” love, and a necessary act for “gay” men.

In the 1980s, these factors helped change the overall sexual culture of the United States.

HIV/AIDS, a disease mainly spread through anal play, began ravaging the “gay” community. Yet the “gay” community was not the only group affected. The entire United States was traumatized by the disease, because to a point, it affected them too. A significant number of presumed “heterosexual” men, including celebrities like Rock Hudson and Anthony Perkins, were among those who died from AIDS.

These deaths were significant because, while they were “gay” identified and very active in the “gay” community, their identity and activity was unknown to the general public. They were able to keep it hidden because outwardly, they appeared to be “normal” men, and were thus presumed to be “heterosexual” identified.

As to why they interacted in the “gay” community, remember a point made before - the morphing definition of “homosexuality”. Because of that, more of these men felt compelled to sexually engage in the “gay” community, even though that wasn’t the case a few decades before. Unfortunately, that also means they engaged in sexual practices unique to the “gay” community that gave them the disease.

Since men not perceived as “homosexual” were AIDS victims, the predominant definition of “homosexuality” (still mostly based on gender inversion) appeared inadequate. Thus, the definition fully and quickly turned into the behavior-based definition that dominates today.

At the same time, it appears the fact that anal sex drove the epidemic, in lieu of other same-sex acts, was lost on the general public. As a result, all same-sex activity began to gain a stigma.

These other relevant factors added into the mix -

Remnants of 1950s Red Scare attitudes. Though the fervor of McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, elements of its attitudes endured throughout the Cold War era. As such, during the Red Scare, a link was established between “homosexuality” (as they defined it then) and Communism. The AIDS epidemic breathed new life into these ideas.

Growth of the Religious Right. The 1970s was characterized by many revolutionary movements - Women’s Liberation, Gay Liberation, the Sexual Revolution, the acceptance of evolution, etc. In response to the changes, a new reactionary form of Christianity developed. Seeing themselves as saviors as morality, the Religious Right staunchly opposed the “gay” community, and “homosexuality” by extension. In the face of the AIDS epidemic, they abandoned reinforcing their historical condemnation of anal sex. Instead, they went full-throttle with the shifting definition of “homosexuality”. As the definition continued to change, their condemnation of “homosexuality” continuously grew in scope and sharpened in tone.

The changing definition of sex. Before long, STDs began affecting “straight” relationships. At times, these diseases were spread through acts that weren’t usually considered “sex”. As a result, sex was soon defined by both penetrative and non-penetrative acts. Paradoxically, this helped reinforce the shifting definition of homosexuality. For better or worse, all same-sex acts were now validly “sex”, and thus were validly “homosexual”.

All these factors combined into a ferocious hysteria over same-sex activity. This hysteria would increase correspondingly with the growth of AIDS, as it reached its peak during the 1990s. However, one of the features of hysteria is its irrationality, as it perceives threats in all kinds of places. Thus, the resulting stigma over same-sex activity soon spread to same-sex attraction, and even to homoerotism.

The frequency of same-sex activity in the general population went down dramatically, as everyday people wanted to escape being touched by the growing hysteria. At the same time, the rates of opposite-sex contact outside marriage shot through the roof. This strongly suggests that, true to their bisexuality, most people went to the opposite gender when same-sex activity became unacceptable. It was in this environment that our current sexual culture - where opposite-sex contact outside marriage is expected - became set in stone.

In other words, the AIDS stigma created the culture that made #MeToo possible. That fact is inescapable, and utterly necessary to understand this movement’s origins. If AIDS didn’t happen, opposite-sex activity outside marriage wouldn’t have become as acceptable or prevalent. As a result, there would have been no culture that could have spawned anything like #MeToo.

Secondly, the radical feminist movement (which is driving the #MeToo phenomenon) is a sister of the modern “gay” movement. As such, many habits existing in the “gay” world are replicating themselves in the #MeToo movement.

For instance, the “gay” movement has no ability to make common sense distinctions. To them all sex is good yet risky, despite all evidence that anal is uniquely dangerous. To them both men and women are designed for penetration, despite all evidence that they are not. To them all men into men have always had anal sex, despite direct and circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

In the same way, and as said before, #MeToo makes similar moves. To the movement, clumsy advances and sophomoric jokes are apparently tantamount to rape or assault. All merit brutal and severe punishment. In its view, no woman is capable of coloring or fabricating stories, and few men treat women with the dignity they deserve. In fact, a few writers openly wonder how women can pass ANY man on the sidewalk without fear.

As another example, both movements feel that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”. In other words, if your opinions don’t march in lockstep with their own, you will be considered their enemy. It doesn’t matter how much you might agree with them.

This has been the reigning motto of the “gay” movement for years. This is why this blog, the g0y movement, the Man2Man Alliance, and other like outlets are ignored or opposed. We agree that the Religious Right has abused their power considerably, and must be stopped from causing further damage. However, we also oppose the anal sex ethos of the LGBT leadership, because we see that as equally harmful. For those and other differences of opinion, we have earned their scorn.

Additionally it should be noted that, when talking about the “gay” movement, the Man2Man Alliance said that their attitudes reeked of fascism.

Something similar is happening with the radical feminist movement that is driving #MeToo. Their more moderate members have voiced concerns over the direction #MeToo is taking, and the overall thrust of the movement. In response, they have been viciously attacked and ridiculed by their fellow feminists. Anything other than uniform opinion will not be tolerated. Examples include Cassie Jaye, Laci Green, and Catherine Deneuve.

Another commonality comprises our third point - both movements contain a vicious streak of misandry, which seems to be currently driving the #MeToo movement.

The “gay” movement has been proudly misandronic for years. To them, masculinity naturally gives birth to homophobia, despite the fact that masculinity has never been a monolith. Anything that seems masculine is constantly disparaged and denigrated, and deserves destruction. “Straight-acting gay” men are treated with suspicion and skepticism, because they don’t want to imitate women in their mannerisms. To them, the more a man imitates a woman in everything he does, the better.

In saying this, I’m not trying to disparage women. My point is that the “gay” movement constantly slams things that are most natural to men, and instead encourages behavior that isn’t natural for them.

On a closely related note, that’s also why their worship of anal makes sense. Throughout history, the penetrated male was thought to be “acting like a woman”. Whether the “gay” leadership admits it or not, that same logic guides them today. They also believe anal feminizes a male, which they think is proper and desirable.

That’s also a reason why they hate frot with a passion - it’s simply too masculine for them to tolerate.

The radical feminists do the same thing. Of late, they have constantly decried the effects of “toxic masculinity”. This phrase usually doesn’t say that certain forms of masculinity are toxic, which is completely true. Instead it says that masculinity itself is toxic and evil, and deserves total eradication. That is shown in terms they have coined that associate masculinity with incivility - ��mansplaining”, “manspreading”, etc. Their words constantly encourage female distrust and dislike of men. As a result, as Cathy Young said in the Washington Post, “Things have gotten to a point where casual low-level male-bashing is a constant white noise in the hip progressive online media.”

As part of its misandry, radical feminism also wishes to control how men interact with each other, even in the smallest of matters. A post from the Man2Man Alliance mentions an interesting development among Blackwater mercenaries (U.S. military contractors) in 2007 Iraq. In their off hours, the male mercenaries liked to sunbathe naked together on their trailer roofs. That came to an end when female helicopter pilots flew overhead, became extremely displeased, and complained to their superiors.

Think about that for a minute. These men were simply minding their own business, and weren’t bothering the female pilots at all. They were simply doing what felt comfortable. Plus, this probably wasn’t the first time those pilots saw penises. Yet, they felt compelled to disrupt a naturally occurring male activity, simply because they didn’t like it. What motivated these women to react so strongly?

As Alliance founder Bill Weintraub put it, “their objection...is the expression of a puritan impulse, and a puritan impulse alone.” This same puritan impulse seems to characterize radical feminism, which evidently motivated the pilots’ actions. It also seems to drive the #MeToo movement.

Mind you, things are even worse now. A recent British study told women that male friendships posed a deep threat to their own relationships with men, and encouraged them to keep those relationships under surveillance. Thus, the deep feminist suspicion of male intimacy rages on.

Thus, to me, this is what’s really driving the #MeToo movement at present. The radical feminists are no longer satisfied with controlling male relationships. Now, they wish to dictate how men interact with them and other females, where women have total possession of the keys of power.

Once again, I’m not trying to disparage women. My point is that as long as one gender feels justified to dominate the other - men over women or women over men - there will always be war. Ultimately, a gender war benefits neither men nor women. At most, extremists of either gender will be the only victors.

At this point however, I hope you fully understand how “homosexuality” relates to #MeToo. They are completely enmeshed and impossible to separate. This connection fully reveals the origins of this movement, and the motivations for its current actions. #MeToo also reveals what was “business as usual” inside the “gay” world, in a way most people can no longer ignore. Whether most people realize it or not, the attitudes of the “gay” world are now affecting their own lives.

As such, this link leads to a question no one is asking - how “homosexuality” will affect the endgame of the #MeToo movement.

First of all, I completely agree that #MeToo will affect our entire sexual culture. Quotes from a “Spiked Online” article by 13 female writers shows that clearly. In the article, writer Joanna Williams said “...a new wariness has taken hold. A voice in our heads asks how our interactions might be interpreted by others. Is it best to leave the office door open? Invite a third party along to the lunch meeting? Under what circumstances can you hug a colleague? Or touch their elbow?” Meanwhile, writer Lionel Shriver said, “I am concerned that sex itself seems increasingly to be seen as dirty, and as a violation, a form of assault, so that we’re repackaging an old prudery in progressive wrapping paper.”

As such, this will affect men more seriously than you might realize. Remember what was said before - our modern sexual culture aren’t that old, and are historically unprecedented.

If this movement happened under past sexual concepts, the outcome would be different. In times past, “sex” was defined by penetration, and thus excluded most same-sex activity. Thus, if “sex” indeed became a taboo activity, that wouldn’t equate to male sexual deprivation. Instead, those men would turn to each other for sexual pleasure. They would have been able to satisfy their urges even as the hysteria raged on.

That doesn’t exist today. In the United States, “homosexuality” now includes all same-sex activity and attraction, and engagement in such activity now warrants the “gay” label. This process has inordinately affected male relationships throughout its duration. As modern sexual philosophy further evolves, it encroaches further into more areas of life. At this point, “bromances” are increasingly considered light versions of “homosexuality”, which might lead to their stigmatization in the near future.

This takes away the avenue of same-sex intimacy from most men. Thus, as sexual interaction with women becomes more precarious, we will enter an unprecedented reality. One of two outcomes will then happen, both of which are equally horrendous -

Most men will end up having no sex at all

In their frustration, those men may immerse themselves into the “gay” world with all its concepts and practices, including its disastrous practice of anal play

The first one will have effects that, in a very scary way, we cannot exactly predict. Sex is a need of most humans that must be satisfied somehow, much like eating and drinking. As such, Psychology Today plainly says, “Nothing inspires murderous mayhem in human beings more reliably than sexual repression...if expression of sexuality is thwarted, the human psyche tends to grow twisted into grotesque, enraged perversions of desire.”

Sexual repression among Christians has helped transform modern porn in size and content. Can you imagine what will happen if such repression exists throughout the United States? Do we really want to create sexually desperate men who will act out in harmful ways?

Mind you, I have my own reservations with our current sexual culture. Since intimacy among men is so taboo, men feel compelled to satisfy same-sex needs in opposite-sex relationships. This causes all kinds of dysfunction that’s unnecessary, but at least there’s some manner of sexual outlet. If total sexual repression becomes reality in the United States, no man or woman would be safe.

The second one will have effects that we do know, which are equally scary. The “gay” world conceptualizes same-sex activity as an abnormality, which is extremely harmful. That thinking justifies the practice of anal play, which has caused all kinds of medical, physical, and psychological harm. If sexual frustrated “straight” men enter this world, the resulting explosion of disease and injury would threaten human life.

Worst of all, it would trivialize women (and men) with real claims of sexual assault and rape. The systems causing so many problems would remain. Only the positions of the players would change.

In other words, under current conditions, the current version of #MeToo would be disastrous.

If there’s one thing #MeToo has done for good, it has caused further cracks in the imaginary wall between “gays” and “straights”. This blog has constantly said that “homosexuality” is impacted by social and political pressures that also affect “straights”. Given the link between #MeToo and “homosexuality”, and how one affects the other, it’s now harder to pretend that “gays” and “straights” live in completely different worlds.

In conclusion, if you are a feminist, I hope that you think long and hard about what I’ve just said. Please don’t react in a knee jerk fashion to this post. Instead, I ask you to really meditate on my words. With everything that I’ve just described, is this a movement that you should blindly support?

For my readers in the United States, I have a special message for you. Don’t think that we are merely seeing a rebellion against sexual assault. We’re really seeing the seismic transformation of our sexual culture. It is now teetering on the verge of collapse, and what replaces it can be very bad or very good.

This movement has inadvertently continued what footballer Aaron Hernandez began, whose suicide made modern sexual philosophy begin to wobble. At this point, it’s highly doubtful that the sexual status quo will continue.

No matter how you identify, you have a dog in this fight. If you have found this site’s content educational and valuable, don’t keep quiet about it. There is no better time to speak than right now. Let people know that the Scriptures don’t condemn “homosexuality”. Publicly acknowledge that most people swing both ways. Educate your peers on history that reveals modern sexual philosophy as fraudulent.

Make no mistake - from what I can see, we are in the middle of another sexual revolution. Our sexual culture is on the verge of fundamental change, and the content of the discussion will determine what will supplant it. In this era of turmoil, the ones who participate will shape its outcome, which will affect us for years to come. Make sure that in this process, you make your voice heard.

Post-Scriptum (added on 1/22/2018)

I’ve just become aware of a third possible outcome for #MeToo - the utilization of sex robots. At this time, its possibility seems somewhat remote, but it still deserves mention.

As male-female sex becomes more fraught with tension, and same-sex contact remains taboo, sexually frustrated humans might turn to sex robots to fill their needs.

To me, this outcome is as horrendous as the first two. Sex is ultimately an expression of intense love and affection. Meanwhile, sex robots are simply manmade objects, not human beings. How can humans make love to objects that can’t reciprocate?

Thus, I believe that under this outcome, their use will likely have long-term detrimental effects. Sex robots may aggravate social isolation, at a time when social cohesion is already under threat. Sex will simply become a reflex detached from love, and not an extreme interpersonal experience. Humans may somewhat lose their ability to mix the sexual with the social, which might cause a decrease in population.

Furthermore, it would work to reinforce the “straight”-”gay” dichotomy, with all its concepts and ideas. Sex robots would remove the risks cursing extramarital opposite-sex contact, such as pregnancy, disease, emotional turmoil, etc. Furthermore, robots might also remove risks inherent in male-male anal sex, such as disease and physical injury.

I think though this is a rather distant option in the United States (at least for now), because

Sex robot technology is still in its infancy, and currently seems resistant to advancement

There’s still a strong social stigma against sex with robots. At present, it simply rubs most people the wrong way. That stigma may or may not last.

Feminists will likely oppose them. If men turn to sex robots en masse, that would undermine the power of women over sexual relations, which would be unacceptable for them

The third point highlights a possible consequence that would be interesting. Corporations and radical feminism, who are currently working together on #MeToo, may end up at each other’s throats if sex robots become popular.

Sex robots can command high prices, which would yield big profits for their manufacturers. If their demand increases, profits would only grow bigger. This might be a reason why corporations are supporting #MeToo - its encouragement of puritanism would create the perfect market for sex robots.

Thus, #MeToo might be yet another infusion of neoliberalism into our sexual dealings. It might further develop the relationship between neoliberalism and modern sexual philosophy.