Post a response:
|
Ronan McCrae is stealing my game-plan! And applying it to fagdom!! Lord Apollo, take me now!!! Ron's written a book called The End of the Gay Rights Revolution. I think I'd have to transition before I could bring myself to read it, but I watched a Quillette interview with him, and there were a few moments of interest. Ron reckons that fags' "anything-goes" approach to sex is harmful, both at a personal and political level. Gay rights could disappear in a trice if a right-wing movement gains serious momentum. There are signs right now that public opinion is cooling on gay marriage, particularly amongst the Fuentes-tending youth. So Ron reckons gays need to promote a conservative-friendly model that can withstand the winds of political fortune. Just what I've been arguing for pederasty!! But listening to his cautious, very vague approach, I couldn’t help thinking his conservative model for fagottry was devoid of any depth or meaning or true communal connection. Unlike a certain other homo-activity that is too old to mention. What arose during the interview, without any cognisance from Ron or the Jon the interviewer, was a black hole that exists at the heart of any conservative gay model. May in fact exist in gayness itself. Ron was very vague on what personal happiness and fulfilment means for today's gay man. He did point to stats on mental health and life-fulfilment showing nothing has improved for fags since gay rights began and has won victory after victory. Why not? He says it's because most gays want to settle down in monogamous married bliss, but they aren't prepared to make the sexual sacrifice to achieve it. He oh so cautiously says promiscuity should be reigned in—or at least not boasted about so publicly. But I seriously question monogamous marriage as the true path to happiness for gays. I think the radical queer lunatics far better represent the meaning of gayness. That is, it's a sexual identity that arose as a specific reaction and adaption to chronic homophobic repression. If gays ain't rebelling -- through art preferably, but alternatively through politics -- then they have no meaning, no point. I charge Ron with the usual fag crime: his vague unconvincing model of gay marriage is another strip-mining of pederasty. He's trying to rejig the stolen fundamentals that have traditionally provided meaning and purpose: Loving Mentorship. For the man-boy couple, pederasty tightly binds them to the lifeblood of society. The meaning is commensurate with the meaning of civilization. For the politically manoeuvring fags, though, it seems rather performative, pointless and sterile. Modern faggotry was born in secretive, rebellious satire, and any attempt today to marry and have kids will inevitably and correctly be seen as an unsettling parody. Ron spoke of the need for gays to ditch today's non-binary lunatics (the MAP-adjacent queers and trannies), and in so doing, Jon made the comparison to the wise gay decision in the 70s to ditch radical lunatics like the pedophiles... I don't think I could bear it, to see another freakish perversion of pederasty-fundamentals used to once again save and honour the fag. Well, maybe I could bear that, but watching pederasts again line up to play the compliant sucker would be difficult. |