Looking through innumerable posts on men's advocates groups from any political leanings and many levels of analytical depth we can perceive a common issue addressed in many forms: there is an on-going battle against male sexuality. Ranging from ideological efforts to shame it, pathologize it, criminalize it, or erase it, up to (fortunately still not successful) tentatives to impose enforced policies for men that if were proposed for any other group will be considered against basic human rights.

We need to analyze this issue in a mature and academic way avoiding the reductionist and emotional approaches that damaged the discussions around this topic in the past (like the so-called femcels and incels) because in many spaces this topic became an un-debatable taboo that triggers people immediately creating a chain reaction that ends in isolated bubbles and radicalized susceptible individuals trapped in their silos.

The balance of the capacity of both sexes to be able to pursue their sexual/reproductive success in a healthy way is a necessary component to mantain societies afloat. In non-human scenarios this balance is regulated by nature, but in the case of humans the regulation is achieved through social means, which is a good thing since we can set limits on damaging behaviors. But on the other hand, social regulation of sexuality can also be politized to extremes that favor one sex over the other or favors specific groups.

Important: It will be logical for most, but it's important to acknowledge before a discussion on this matter that on the individual level, every men and women are responsible for their own behavior and that nobody should be entitled to anything about the other, and also nobody should tolerate physical or psychological abuse. Anyone outside this boundaries won't be contributing to this discussion.

The feminist moral framework on sexuality

Analyzing the discourse from many feminist groups, is possible to notice that the modern feminist moral framework on sexuality is constructed to limit as much as possible the expression and exercising of male sexuality of the majority of men and potentialize as much as possible female sexual strategies to benefit the majority of women (in a reality where sexual dynamics are already biologically imbalanced against majority of men).

There are lots of examples on how this framework operates, but I've compiled and summarized some of the most common and recognizable ones from the spaces in which conversations happen:

-Creating concepts to frame male sexuality as inherently "immoral" and "wrong". For example, using as a truism that "all men are potential rapists" when theoretically anyone could potentially be anything you happen to propose, because potentiality doesn't imply a factual state, but a state that could be developed in the future only if certain conditions are met. This is as absurd and bigoted as saying that "all Muslims are potential terrorists" or that "all Germans are potential neo-nazis", it is plainly hate speech.

-Encouraging and applauding pro-active socio-sexual behaviors on women while labeling the exact same behaviours as immoral, toxic or criminal on men. For example, portraying the act of openly declaring sexual interest in someone as "empowering" for woman but as "predatory" for men (applying this even more aggressively for men who doesn't meet traditional beauty standards).

-Male sexuality shaming by labeling the public depiction of male sexual experiences, desires and strategies as "disgusting", "gross" or even "macho/chauvinistic" while at the same time labeling this exact same thing as "empowering" and "natural" in the case women

-Advocating for the elimination of female traditional beauty standards while ​at the same time, favoring unattainable male beauty standards. For example, claiming "objectification" when a stereotypical model woman is shown in a sexual way to appeal to male audiences in media but seeing as natural and even "hot" when a male stereotypical model is portrayed in the same way

-Pressuring governments to limit the definitions of sexual crimes to be one-sided (biased to frame the crime definitions in ways in which men should always or in most cases be the perpetrators and women the victims) while also widening this biased one-sided definitions to be rethorically blended with non-harmful strategies of male sexuality. For example, framing a non-sexual approach as "harrasing" when the man approaching is outside the expected standard of a woman, but not when the one approaching is a woman outside the expected standard of a man. This kind of thinking leads in the long run to the creation of concepts like "rape culture" and similars: If you can frame as "rape" many things that are not (and do rethoric gymnastics to frame anything you feel like as a "rape enablers"), then you can create the idea that a supposed "rape culture" exists, that is "criminal", and that its perpetrators are men as a group, and also craft statistics biased on their very core definitions to "validate" the narrative

-On alleged sex crime cases that haven't been investigated, adopt the moralistic stance to "belive all women" just for the sake of being women, instead of focusing on evidence and objective tools to get closer to the truth, and hearing both sides of the story until arriving to a rational conclusion, creating in this way a constant flow of content replicating the vision of the female victim and male perpetrator, even when many cases could point in different directions. An unconfirmed suspicion of a woman rape case can trigger furious feminist mobs, but a real rape case of a man in which the perpetrator is a woman is not even called rape by them and is dismissed or ignored, because male victims don't support their narrative. Also, no real accountability for false rape accusations exist within this framework.

As this framework relies on the concept of men being perpetrators and women victims, they also use it as a way to push into the agenda that we need to "make men accountable" but not women.

Nowadays, anyone who dares to give a glimpse of this criticisms, even if they are treated in rational and analytical ways is immediately labeled as "incel", "pro-rape" (or directly "rapist"), "hurt" by someone or "in need for (psychological) help". Common individuals are immediately banned from communities and public persons are "canceled".

After constructing this moral framework for years, now feminism feel entitled to label any vision outside their logic as "hate" against women, and have perpetrated it so deeply within institutions that they even have in some cases factual power instances to impose it forcefully, and as history tell us, this political approach never ends well when taken to the extremes.

We need to construct a solid academic critique to this framework, and we so need active voices to get awareness to these concepts outside this circle in a rational way.

The need for balance to set fair norms

As noted in some of the examples mentioned above, feminist moral framework on sexuality is working on giving the sole power of sexual dynamics to women, by limiting men to the maximum, practically resulting in outcomes for men like:

-Having a negative moral view about their own sexuality

-Limiting/disencouraging casual approach to woman by creating a fear for minimal actions

-Being left outside of the body positivity movements (or in the rare ocations when "included", untying the non-traditionally attractive male bodies from their sexuality creating the stereotype of the unattractive cis "good guy" that is "good" because he is not sexual)

-Being ostracized, shamed, canceled and excluded when talking about male sexuality and their issues

-Being judged and condemned by laws adjusted to feminist benefit and not for human equality

-Being invisible when are victims of sexual violence or legal injustice

This are some of the reasons to pursue a fairer way, and it's time for men to propose and push forward a new framework, based on real equality and not in a single-sex agenda, acknowledging current social realities, scientific knowledge and an ample view on justice.

What do you think could be some ways to act on this issue in a productive way? If we want to aspire to a more balanced social approach to sexuality we need to actively fight against the ongoing perpetration of the damaging concepts by the media, academy and other institutions.