I can't be the only one that notices this. It seems like something I'm constantly running into when trying to discuss issues like male touch starvation, or inverting/balancing gender roles in relationships. Even on subs that are supposedly in favor of free expression. That is to say, they are, but not when it comes to men, apparently.

For example, I've seen people assert that men that say they want to be in what is generally thought of as the more "traditionally female" role (i.e. the comfortee as opposed to the comforter, the pursued rather than the pursuer, etc.), whether that means sometimes or all the time, are like "man children" and/or that they have a "mommy dom" fetish.

Ok, well, if its a "mommy dom" fetish, is it necessarily a "daddy dom" fetish when women want to be held/hugged/cuddled? The answer any logical person would come to is no, there's nothing paternal about that. Now obviously those fetishes do exist, and there's nothing wrong with them anyway. I'm not going to kink shame people. I do think its funny how women calling their lover "daddy" is seen as normal but a guy calling his lover "mommy" is basically unheard of. Methinks there's some projection going on here. But that's beside the point.

The reason I think people see things in this way could perhaps be due to latent evopsych programming. The structure of human relationships according to evolution could perhaps be characterized by affection flowing in the following order: man > woman > child. In other words, its not really necessary for men to receive comfort and affection because they're supposed to be stoic provider/protectors for women, who in turn are provider/protectors for children. Therefore, a man receiving loving affection is read as infantile because it is "supposed" to be reserved by women for children.

Regardless, I think its pretty disgusting that people take what should be seen as an ordinary human need and equate it to "just a fetish". It's easier to dismiss something when its "just a fetish". I've even seen people use this a springboard to say that the woman in the "motherly role" are being objectified as sex objects. Yet another instance of 'male problem, women most affected'.

The other possible cause of this I can see is that being in the more "receptive role" in one instance, is seen as feminine due to the subconscious association between femininity and the receptive role in another instance (sex). This could also be why males are expected to be socially dominant as well. Which is, of course, dumb: there's no logical connection between how someone acts in the bedroom vs. other situations. But as you know, most humans are often illogical creatures and make unnecessary connections between things. The point is, this paradigm could be explained as a manifestation of disgust towards men that express this want for being "unmanly", with everything else being a smokescreen to cover up that misandry.

(Truth be told, part of the appeal, for me at least, IS EXACTLY the escapism of stepping outside normal male gender roles, but all that shows is just how oppressive they really are.)

There is one more defense of this motherly coding that I see. Which is something along the lines of "you're not really about free gender roles, you're just an incel desperate for female affection." My response to that is: "...and so what?". Is being affection starved, or wanting to feel pursued like women are, somehow not valid just because of relationship status or gender? I guess its just more of the typical blaming of someone's relationship status on their own flaws. As if all women are perfect angels, and the only guys who could possibly feel deprived of affection from them are misogynist creeps who created their own well deserved hell. Never mind that plenty of men who are in relationships, or at least not so perpetually single, also feel the same way. Its pretty obvious this defense is nothing more than a shallow attempt at sidestepping reciprocation. "Freedom of gender roles for me but not for thee," as it were.