Essay:Do feminists hate BLs for being MGTOWs?
What are the two groups that hate BLs the most? Surely, evangelical Christians and radical feminists. Evangelical Christians, we can understand as being probably self-hating BLs, who being unable to destroy their own homoerotic pedophilic desires without committing suicide, have to resort to attacking manifestations of similar attractions in others.
But what explains why "strong, independent" women would hate BLs? I've noticed that some of the most anti-BL people are radical feminists. For example, a lot of the psychologists in charge of sex offender treatment are radical feminists, and they tend to be very strict about policing their patients' BL thoughts and behaviors, going way beyond the call of duty in their anti-BL crusading.
Why is this? I think it's because BLs are the ultimate MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way). BLs are not part of the mainstream gay rights movement, which usually allies with feminists. Nor do they serve women as sperm donors, child support payers, and other kinds of useful chumps, the way that blue pill heterosexual, teleiophilic beta men so often do. Women have a harder time trying to milk BLs for resources, political support, etc., because they can't use their sexuality as leverage to manipulate them. So they have to resort to using force against these men, by disenfranchising them, imposing sex offender restrictions on them, etc.
BLs also provide an alternative link between boys and the adult world, potentially taking the place of the role of (usually female) schoolteachers and dominant or single moms who would otherwise have a free hand in indoctrinating little boys however they wish. Feminists would like to destroy all bonds between men and boys that could present a threat to their agenda of control and influence over young males as they develop.
Wherever there's an all-male environment (whether it's the military, or sports, or whatever), feminists would like to intrude and say that toxic masculinity is being propagated. They demand that either women be allowed entry, or the entire institution/organization/gathering/relationship/etc. be shut down. Once women enter, of course, they dismantle the whole culture that has developed, and replace it with a new, more politically correct culture that views men as malefactors and women as victims in need of empowerment.
In feminists' view, two males hanging out together without a woman present, and without plenty of "Ls," "Bs," and "Ts" to complement the "Gs" in their group of GLBT associates, can't possibly be up to any good. Feminists want to not only destroy any resistance to their agenda, but also even the smallest seeds of potential resistance, before they have a chance to sprout and take root.
More fundamentally, feminism is cultural Marxism that views any trade of services for money as exploitative. While we may speak of love, and it is indeed a real phenomenon, let's face it, it's often very convenient to hang out with a rich friend, and many women have viewed wealthy men as attractive mates. The more two people need each other, the more closely bound they are, and the more that true love develops; "love" has even been defined sometimes as a combination of mutual attraction and lack of other options. The fewer other options you have, the more special the person you're with seems to you, and the stronger your love may grow. It could even be a survival mechanism for ensuring that one treats helpful people well.
Yet, a situation of scarcity and youthful dependence on another is anathema to feminists, who view it as creating circumstances ripe for exploitation to develop. Feminists would like to dismantle all this, and view the person receiving money, gifts, etc. as an oppressed individual who needs to become financially independent before he can give meaningful consent to sex or any other kind of relationship.
We are at a point now where even a man who gives a boy a present without touching him is viewed as a predator for trying to "groom" him to like him. As is typical of Marxists, they view the wealthier adult as the bourgeois and the boy as the proletarian, regardless of the true balance of power, influence, dependence, love, etc. between them. If a sex act occurs between them, this is construed as a service from the boy to the man, rather than as mutually enjoyable affection, because material gifts were mostly being given from the man to the boy, making it seem like an economic transaction.
Yet, it is the oldest tradition for presents to be made from the older generation to the younger generation, who then pay the generosity forward by in turn giving to the next generation. What is really going on here, is that the ruling class wants to eradicate any interaction that occurs through private channels rather than being organized by the state, because the state wants to monopolize everything and gain total control. The state wants everyone to dependent on it, rather than relying on family or friends for material or emotional needs.
The problem is, the state is bureaucratic and cold, and can't provide true satisfaction the way a rewarding relationship can. The state is also vindictive and cruel. Anyone who has ever dealt with feminists knows that these are also characteristics that the feminists share.
While people claim, "BLs will just abandon their young friends when they come of age," it is actually feminists who will abandon boys who come of age. The feminist schoolteacher will stop being a mentor to the boy who has grown up, because it's not her job to remain in his life. Her effectiveness as a mentor to boys was always limited anyway, because the anti-fraternization policies of her job prevented her from getting too close, and because being a woman, she was not able to relate to boys' experiences the way a man could've.