Recently an article from the HuffPost called The Epidemic of Gay Loneliness was posted on r/gaybros. Now, while I'm not a big fan of that newspaper nor that sub, I thought it was an interesting read, where the gay writer seems to grasp some redpill theory, even if unconsiously.
He starts talking about how most of the straight friends of his age (middle 30s) are marrying, having families and living a more quiet life. In contrast, a huge majority of his gay friends choose to remain around wild parties, with tons of substance abuse and casual sex. He doesn’t seem too critical of this, but he does wonder why young gays like him, who grew up in liberal cities, who came one generation after the AIDS epidemic, who recently got the right to marry and have never been better represented in the media, are still living very apart from the heterosexual lifestyle. He then goes on about higher suicide rates, depression, anxiety etc.
But that’s not really what called my attention the most. After a few paragraphs he mentions a study showing that most gay guys are looking for masculine men, while at the same time wanting to be more masculine themselves. The writer blames this (of course) on how society is built to value masculinity and also because masculine men can pass as straight. I don’t really buy this.
Anyway, suppose that study is a faithful depiction of homosexuals in general. This means that most are trying to or feel that they should be dominant, but are also attracted to a dominant partner, which makes polarity in a relationship quite hard to achieve. Therefore the numbers would go against what most wish in a relationship, at least an LTR.
I can only imagine two realistic outcomes and one that seems more ideal for a relationship of two masculine guys.
1) None of them gives up or wants to lower their masculinity or dominance, meaning that there’s no submission of any party to the other. Polarity therefore fails to exist. They might become good friends, associates of a project, bros etc, but if we assume that polarization is necessary to develop passion, then their love might just be a fraternal one at best. Should wrote about this much more deeply on his blog
2) One of them decides to submit and adopt the more feminine role in order to create a functional romantic relationship. A lot of you guys seem to have no problem with this system but I see two flaws. The first is that the more feminine guy might eventually get stressed out of adopting this role, as he is still a man after all. The second is that acting more feminine can make his partner become less attracted to him in the long run, since he was attracted to masculinity in the first place.
3) This is the ideal one. By ideal I mean hard to happen, but not impossible (maybe?). In order to create polarity, the submission of one of the parties occurs. However, the more feminine guy is skillful enough, or happens to find the right equilibrium, between femininity, attractiveness and identity. This means he submits just enough to maintain polarity, while not having to fake his essence or losing his initial sexual appeal to his partner. I’ve seen people naming this the General x Lieutenant sort of relationship. I do think this is rare though.
So I might be missing something, but my conclusion is that gay loneliness, at least a romantic one, isn’t that rooted on traditional society oppression or anything like that. It’s rooted on male biology, as most gay men often find themselves between a rock and a hard place. By being masculine they manage to become more attractive, but fail to develop a healthy romantic relationship. Femininity on the other hand will go against their instinct, taking a toll on their identity and life plans.