So in the past couple of days, I've noticed that some of my posts about male sexuality were stirring up some controversy here. Particularly this thread (https://ovarit.com/o/Radfemmery/462069/femliyana-breaking-down-why-the-first-step-to-achieving-women-s-liberation-is-re) which I posted from twitter user @femliyana (who I can't hype up enough btw. Please follow her on Twitter if you have one) along with the following quotes:

“It's absolutely wild that women think male sexual attraction is a compliment. Men violate anything. They literally rape children, infants, and occasionally animals. It requires absolutely no effort to make men find you sexually attractive. It's not a compliment. It's a threat.” Even 'consensual' sex is damaging to a woman's psyche and typically involves rape-adjacent degredation and disrespect

Suffice to say, Liyana's 'broad generalization's' about men's sexuality seemed to strike a nerve. The speculation in my comments range from her being a lesbian who has never had an intimate relationship with a man, too naive about what intimate relationships with men are actually like, to her being far too heavily influenced by the porn she's seen.

According to some of you, Liyana's views on male sexuality can be summarized as

'obviously, demonstratively untrue shit' that only helps 'professional victims, who lose their profitable victim gig if people actually solve these problems and start respecting each other.'

One user had this to say about her:

If you want to go around hating and fearing every single man then I pity you.

I've individually responded to a couple of these comments, but despite how much I love Liyana's threads, I am unfortunately not her. Which means I can't confirm or deny any of the assumptions made about her experiences (or lack of experiences) with men. Nor can I argue a pro-man-hating stance on her behalf on account of not actually being a misandrist, myself. This one quote from radblr pretty much sums up my own stance

No, men aren't inherently evil. Y chromosomes don't make monsters and testosterone isn't poison. Biology isn't destiny. But if a group of people repeatedly choose to hurt, suppress, and dehumanize more than half the population for their own gain or status, is it inappropriate to label such collective behavior as evil? No, their evil isn't biologically ingrained, they are not born with it- but they choose that evil time and time again, across multiple civilizations and eras. They pass it down to their children, they find solidarity in it despite their various differences. They make it law, they make it science, they make it culture. How can we call that anything but evil?

So I figure that the next best thing would be to combine all my responses to your comments into a single post explaining why I personally believe that acknowledging the reality of men's sexuality is not the same as hating them.

Now the reason why I don't believe in hating men is because imo hatred is irrational and irrational beliefs give way to irrational mindsets, and irrational mindsets give way to irrational actions. Irrationality is something akin to a virus in that it spreads .ike one to every aspect of who you are as a person.

What is not irrational however, is the statistics. And we know from them that men pose the biggest risk of sexual violence against virtually every vulnerable population in human society. From women to children, even to the elderly in nursing homes (seriously I've heard so many horror stories of male staff molesting the women who live there).

Another thing that isn't an irrational belief is that human beings are primates, and primate males of any species are naturally sexually violent and predatory by way of a mating strategy. This abstract from a 1992 study from the University of Nebraska (https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/smuts.pdf) sums it up quite nicely

Male use of aggression toward females, particularly in a sexual context, is common in primates, which suggests that male aggression against women may often represent species-specific manifestations of wide- spread male reproductive strategies aimed at control of female sexuality

So acknowledging that men have a biological proclivity for sexual violence isn't a moral issue at all. Adult male chimpanzees are extremely aggressive to females, using the aggression to coerce females to mate with them. Increased sexual aggression is evident even in fellow mammals like dolphins. We are NOT magically special and different from our animal cousins. We have the same biological drives, urges, and instincts. Violence is encoded in men's DNA by evolution as a response to sexual competition for mates and a reproductive strategy for passing on their genes.

The grim, yet objectively observable result of this strategy is that it manifests itself on a society-wide scale in the form of male supremacy. Restricting female independence/autonomy ensures that every man who upholds the patriarchal structures enabling it is all but guaranteed access to a personal rapedoll/ mommy mcbangmaid in the form of a prostituted woman or a wife. As a result, Women have been structurally oppressed for nearly all of human history BECAUSE of male sexual desire.

Women who have rights and resources tend to avoid marriage and childbearing because they would much rather make their own money than be raped and dehumanized by males for money. Globally, birthrates decline sharply the moment girls have access to basic education and literacy. Now theoretically, men could just be decent partners and get women that way, but the majority of men don't WANT to be decent partners. They would rather stick to the classic strategy of disenfranchising women so that we are forced to depend on them for survival, and have no choice but to put up with their shit.

A drawback of this system is that thousands of years of patriarchy have hijacked female sexual selection and allowed for far too many violent males to be able to breed and pass down their tendency for violence and cruelty. We know that the Y chromosome has shrunk greatly (bottleneck effect) because at some point in history a minority of men mated with a majority of women. Knowing what we know of human history, it is most likely that they achieved this through war, rape, pillaging, and murder. We also know through studies on epigenetics that our genes are affected by our life experiences and that these experiences add chemical markers on genes that are passed down to the offspring. In short, there is no way in hell that thousands of years of restricting women's ability to choose who we reproduce with hasn't led to the proliferation of more depraved and violent males than non-violent ones.

This isn't to say women are inherently better people than men, but we DO lack the distinct sexual sadism and brutal exploitative drive that men possess by default.

Furthermore, if a woman had some crazy evil idea and tried to share it with a group of women, barely any of them would support her let alone form an organization advocating for her evil ideas. The same cannot be said of men, for whom throughout the course of human history, there have been numerous cases of gang rapes committed by groups of more than 100 of them. What are the odds that a rapist just had that many men willing to join him in his friend circle? And any 'good guys' who must've turned down those rapists for suggesting something like this, clearly never felt pressed enough to do anything to stop them from doing so. They might not have wanted to deal with the guilt that came after comitting the act, but obviously didn't give a crap about the women who wound up hurt.

Take Junko Furuta's case for example (look her up but not on a full stomach). Aside from the hundreds of men who participated in the crime, many men knew it was happening, but not one decided to do anything about it. This is why you cannot apply generalizations of male depravity to women. Evil ones certainly do exist, but they will never be able to organize in large numbers to commit atrocities. Because most women have an innate sense of right and wrong that men need to be taught (and even then will still possess the urge to brutalize regardless of whether or not they act on it hence the popularity in pornography, most of which involves women getting submitted to all kinds of painful, humiliating, and torturous acts for the gratification of a predominantly male consumer base) .

In fact, compared to men, female people have NEVER demonstrated ANY collective desire or willingness to band together to terrorize any male who enters their job industry, they've never formed female-only gangs and institutions and governments dedicated to human trafficking and enslavement of males, they've never formed all-female pedophile rings to supply each other with male children to brutalize. But these behaviors are ubiquitous amongst groups of men and that's how males maintain power under male supremacy.

When I point out this reality of male sexuality, I am not holding it against them. Honestly, at this point, I'm completely desensitized to it. It's not a particularly pleasant reality, but acknowledging the truth is more beneficial in the long-run than going into denial and gaslighting oneself about it. The global epidemic of male violence against women has persisted for as long as it has largely in part due to women's inability to make connections in their lives and their reluctance to think about things deeply. Think about the ways you see men act throughout history and in everyday life. Like REALLY think about it.

• obsession with weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction, heavy machinery and anything that brings specially brutal and violent death seems to be something that brings the most joy to men

• causing, leading, and glorifying wars, celebrating murderers as war heroes, taking pride in partaking in wars, glorifying mass destruction and spreading death, taking pride and joy in violence; men seem to feel that more they destroy and kill, more powerful they are, mistaking destruction for power instead of weakness, they don’t seem to be able to see that creation is the only power, destruction is a failure and parasite-like behavior

• if you watched mad max:fury road, you might have noticed the men in it were exceptionally eager to celebrate themselves via death, screaming “witness me” as if they’re to be worshiped for dying in a specially dramatic way, i noticed irl men immediately taking up this specific catchphrase and using it

• obsession with particularly brutal and violent sports, even deadly ones, using them almost as replacement for wars, creating war-like atmosphere around it, also using them as means to spread destruction and conflicts

• destructive language used positively among males; “i killed it”, “i raped it”, “i destroyed it”, used as actual bragging of how well they’ve done, especially in regards to sex

• mass destruction of environment (polluting air, water, ground) via corporations, seems to find destruction of the planet both pleasurable and profitable

• popularizing and fetishizing pale, skinny, fragile, starving and completely submissive women with no will of their own, meaning the closer woman gets to a young-looking corpse, more attractive she is to a male

• seeming to particularly enjoy physical and psychological destruction of females, normalizes marital abuse all across the globe

• glorifying abusive relationships and emotionally abusing their female partner into forceful and dangerous sex and other particularly destructive practices ultimately deadly for women (piv, fgm, foot binding, forced pregnancy and childbirth, etc.)

• turning torture, abuse and destruction of women into sexual fetish, there are also straightforward necrophilia fetishes

• fetishizing raping unconscious women, drugging and incapacitating women before raping them, making them immobile, unable to resist, or give out any life signs in general, making them more similar to corpses i wish this wasn’t true but there are male fetishes of torturing and killing animals as well

• all patriarchal religions are based around death and worshiping death and using death to control the living, creation is quickly skimmed over with “god created life at the start” and then the rest is about god killing, destroying, obliterating life, even asking for death “sacrifices” to be made for him, and that’s apparently what makes it a god

• refusal to acknowledge women as source of life, but have mastered the technique of slowly draining women of all their life-energy and sucking them dry, until they’re drained, tired and dead-like, then they’re discarded

• male attraction towards women seems to be attraction to the potential of destroying those women, explaining pedophile culture, female children are still full of life thus destroying them comes as much more satisfying to males

• most popular fairy tales, snow white and sleeping beauty, in both cases men fall in love with corpse-like sleeping women, what exactly where they attracted to, if not the fact that these women were breathing corpses, non moving, silent, frozen in death-like state, snow white is even lying in coffin.

• did you read that real life story about a woman who got a horrible infection after a one night stand with a man, and after checking with a doctor, she was told the only way she could get it was if her genitals were in touch with a corpse bacteria, and the man she had sex with worked at a morgue? I will never. fucking. forget that story. if one man is fucking corpses that is already too many, and honestly, it’s not that hard to imagine most of them doing it as soon as they get a chance. And they do. Hence why a lot of morgues have exclusively female staff

when you start paying attention to it, this shit is EVERYWHERE, we have always just ignored men’s weird fetishes and obscure and bizzare interests and wrote it off as “men being men” but this is a pattern and it’s seriously dangerous, destructive, and fucked up, and it’s telling us something about their nature. In comparison to men, women are BIOphilic, meaning we create and uphold life, and only fight to protect it, without worshiping mindless death and destruction. We have been fighting an endless war against them, us on the side of life, and them on the side of death, and we didn’t even realize it was happening.

So yeah, at it's barest core, male sexuality is simply fetishized violence and necrophilia. People refuse to recognize this because they don't want to admit that the vast majority of men exist on a sliding scale of pedophilia, sadism, and depravity. But it's undeniable when laid out. Men are able to 'excuse' their depravity because they self soothe with the comfort that there's always another man out there doing something worse (hence why they'll always define predatory/abusive behavior as one step worse than the worst action their conscience will allow them to commit), but as a result of this rationale, pretty much all of them exist on the spectrum of predation.

Men who rape toddlers and their daughters are just carrying typical male sexuality (wanting to violate the youngest, most innocent girls out there) to it's logical conclusion. Why do you think one of the most popular porn categories is 'teen'? Why does most of it feature abuse, degredation, simulated daddy-daughter incest, domination, conquest, obsession with female youth and virginity, coercion, brutality, schoolgirl fetishization, strangulation? These are the hallmarks of heterosexual encounters, arousal through cruelty, through abuse, through demeaning and sadistic acts.

Serial killers like Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez are also just taking male sexuality to it's logical conclusion. Why do you think most of them are men? (People like to bring up Aileen Wuernos as a gotcha, but if she were a guy, she'd be indistinguishable from the hundreds of other male murderers). They're outliers only in degree of their severity; in terms of general sexual proclivities, it's just normal male sexuality. Men strangle women in bed on a regular basis. Don't believe me? Google the statistics for how many women in 'developed' Western countries like the UK report being strangled by their boyfriends/husbands as a part of sex. Start your search off with this article https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/25/fatal-hateful-rise-of-choking-during-sex.

Men who commit femicide are (once again) just taking normal male sexuality to it's logical conclusion. Males are aroused by the violation of innocence and childhood, aroused by making a woman tear and bleed (hence their obsession with virginity), and aroused by domination and dehumanization (wartime rape, conquest, sex/rape trade).

Even 'normal' male sexuality is inherently terrifying and abusive. It still entails objectification and dehumanization, at the very least- looking at women like objects, talking about them in filthy ways, breaking them down to component body parts in ways that women almost never do to males or anyone else for that matter.

So regardless of whether or not a man's sex drive is less violent than others, he is probably still necrophilic. The thirty year old male dating an 18 year old is aroused by the violation and destruction of innocence and childhood. The male who coerces his wife into anal sex is aroused by making her tear and bleed. He revels in the pain he is submitting her to. The male who subjects his girlfriend to demeaning acts or strangles her, or even does 'milder' degrading things like asking for blowjobs is aroused by seeing her vulnerable, aroused by conquest and ownership.

It's almost like even that which society considers 'normal' male sexuality IS in fact (you guessed it) fundamentally abusive and necrophilic!

Now keep in mind that pointing out that all men possess an inherent degree of depravity doesn't mean they're abusive to EVERYONE. Most of them are not. Most men are perfectly decent to their bosses, their colleagues, neighbors, family etc. That doesn't mean they don't possess the capacity to brutalize, abuse, and exploit women and girls. Nor does it mean they won't act on such urges when the opportunity to get away with doing so arises.

That's why men are the most dangerous when they are away from their communities and social networks because they provide a level of accountability and social control needed to keep them in line. Humanity has always known that. It's where "stranger danger" comes from. It's not just that you don't know who that stranger is and what he's capable of. He is also not part of the local social network that keeps him accountable and in line.

When they are away (at war, in the wilderness, on vacation...) they do things they would never dare to do at home because they know it will not impact their standing in their community negatively. They know that misbehaving when your family, boss, powerful people in the community etc. could see it is stupid and can have bad consequences, but who will ever know if they misbehave on vacation? No consequences. The locals won't tell the people at home and you'll never see them again. This gets even worse when they are surrounded by their "bros" who feel the same.

Social control, accountability and shaming is what keeps them in line at home (often barely). Take that away and surround them with strangers they don't care about and they will act out their lowest instincts because they feel like they can without repercussions. Men who are perfect angels at home often turn into monsters when they are alone on vacation. Just think about all the men who to go Asia to rape child prostitutes and then back home to their families like nothing happened.

So sure, a man might be outwardly 'good' and charitable to others in his immediate social circle. He might have won a Nobel peace price. He might be Mahatma Ghandhi or MLK. But you know what Ghandhi did? He sexually exploited his neices and great granddaughters. MLK cheated on his wife and raped prostitutes. Men can make numerous positive contributions to society and still be irreparably sexually depraved behind closed doors because people are fundamentally defined by how they treat those weaker than them, those they have power over. The mark of a person's character is what they do when the vulnerable are subject to their whim. And nearly all men fail this test. Their true character always comes through when they have a woman/girl/male child at their mercy and the smallest window of opportunity to abuse them without consequence.

Which once again brings us back to the topic of mass rape and why it's so commonly used as a weapon of war. Your upstanding veteran husband/ father/ brother, probably raped and brutalized countless young girls in Vietnam. Because he could. Because all men have the fundamental desire and capacity to sexually (and concurrently, physically and psychologically) abuse/exploit women and children. The average woman does not possess this capacity.

"B-but he was a hero who did charity work and built houses for the homeless and saved the polar bears" Yeah and he was probably still capable of brutalizing women, and probably did so the moment he was certain no one would ever find out.

So no matter how wonderful a man's public persona might seem, he is still fundamentally depraved- or at least there is something deeply, unfixably wrong with him- if he exploits women/girls.

And a man might not mistreat all women equally. If a man has a string of relationships, he might be less abusive to a woman who is his age and works with him- but he'll be more abusive to a different woman who is younger and/ or more vulnerable, like the prostitute he pays to rape after clocking out for the day. Men are opportunistic like that. Their displays of depravity are frequently inconsistent. A man who is consistently evil to everyone is quite rare. But nearly every male has the desire and the drive to brutalize women/children. And when it comes down to it, this is their one defining characteristic that transcends countries, cultures, time periods, ethnicity, religion, etc.