It seems my talented young friend John Arcto has publicly broken with me over the dreaded Homo Question. You can read his article here, and I strongly recommend that all of you do so—mostly because Arcto dedicates a few paragraphs in the first half to explaining how much of a Chad I am, and it’s crucial that you guys internalize this.
Anyway, before I address the meat and potatoes of Arcto’s argument about gay and homosexual stuff, I’d like to push back a bit on how this piece characterizes my work.
At the end of the day I wouldn’t say that Rachel Haywire and I are part of the same precise faction right now. She and I are good friends, fellow travelers, and occasional collaborators—and we are both autistes who love AI art—but she is also far more of a hipster / aesthete / philosopher than I am, and is much less interested in democratic policy debate. Meanwhile, I’m still a lot more identitarian than her, probably more libertine, and more interested in building out exoteric material power structures.
Now, I’m certainly not offended to be grouped together with Rachel. But I think John is displaying a blindspot here, because like all clever young men developing heuristics for understanding a messy and chaotic world, Arcto really likes to categorize things.
…so much so, in fact, that it’s become his claim to fame! John’s most prominent work here on Substack is his excellent Factions of the Rightosphere series, which catalogs in painstaking detail the history, characteristics, and internecine squabbles of various right-wing subcultures. These articles are a superb resource for anyone new to these circles—especially younger Zoomers and Gen Alpha kids just getting into politics.
John’s archivist impulse makes great sense given that he came of age and joined the online intellectual right during a time of tremendous cultural diffusion. Ever since Charlottesville, the trend in our circles has been in the direction of greater differentiation and specialization. Most figures in the online right have become intellectual nomads, eschewing big tents and complex status hierarchies for comfy self-selected bubbles. When trying to understand such an ecology—particularly as a Zoomer—it makes perfect sense to “pattern match” to whatever extent possible, and thereby impose at least some order on an increasingly anarchic thoughtscape.
And that is the mindset under which Arcto groups me and Haywire together, because it’s absolutely true that she and I share some superficial commonalities, in that we’re both focused on cultivating a rightist ethic among the “right” sort of people:
As mentioned, this space eludes naming as of present. Walt Bismarck stubbornly stuck to the name ‘Alt-Right 2.0’ for a while, believing that ‘Alt’ captured a large part of what the old Alt-Right had been before it became synonymous with Neo-Nazism, though he soon gave up, and now uses the humorous name ‘Walt Right’ to describe himself and his circle. Rachel Haywire likes to call herself ‘Art Right’, similar sounding to ‘Alt’ whilst separating it from White Nationalism, and emphasising the artistic character of the movement, that Walt Bismarck characterised the early Alt-Right of having. Whilst they do have their own circles, there is some crossover, Walt Bismarck did show up for one of Haywire’s Salons that I was also in attendance of.
Arcto frames the Haywire / Bismarck impulse as a specific desire to build right wing “Elite Human Capital” (or EHC, hence the moniker “EHC Right”) by attracting more intelligent / honest / creative people into the movement.
Now obviously Rachel and I both want to do this. But as John himself notes, so does he. And so does Nathan Cofnas. And Scott Greer. And Richard Hanania. And when I appeared on Richard Spencer’s podcast a few months ago, he too endorsed this impulse, as did my fellow guest and future WRP contributor Daniella Pentsak.
I’m pretty sure you’d have the damndest time finding a single rightist on Substack who’d oppose this project. If anyone ever does it’ll probably be me breaking up a circlejerk!
So the more I think about it, the more I suspect that the commonality Arcto had identified between us was something superficially very similar to a desire for EHC, but substantially quite different. That’s because our actual overlap is an enthusiasm for intellectual salons, which itself stems from particular temperamental qualities.
Rachel and I each march to the beat of our own drum. We’re passionate and strong-willed people who don’t like being pushed in any direction we find disagreeable. That means neither of us neatly aligns with any particular subculture. More happily, it also means we’re both very good at talking to people with different perspectives from our own, and are fascinated by novel and innovative ideas. That’s what makes Rachel such an effective salon host, and has given her such an extensive circle on Substack.
It is also why my own podcast Walt Right Perspectives has proven so successful and intellectually generative over the past few months.
At this juncture I’ll stop speaking for Rachel and purely discuss the Walt Right.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that the format of my show goes hand in hand with my metapolitical philosophy. I don’t approach politics in an “ideological” way like most people do, because I don’t really have fixed, object-level views on most issues.
Instead I proceed from three fundamental principles:
Politics is circumstantial. Your specific policy preferences (and prioritization thereof) will usually change with your own material situation, as well as shifting identarian factors like age and marital status. A lot of someone’s views will also change based on largely unpredictable factors like macroeconomic conditions, foreign wars, variations in climate patterns, and technological breakthroughs.
Politics is coalitional and transactional. In any society, people need to coalesce into interest groups / factions / political parties to exert any influence over the state. In practice, this requires lots of backroom transactional horse trading between various subfactions to secure a common platform generally acceptable to all groups. Then in the wider body politic the same transactional horse trading occurs between coalitions, which break apart all the time whenever the opposing side successfully employs a wedge issue or tactics like triangulation. When this coalition is a political party it is typically called a “realignment.”
Politics is personal. That means a tremendous amount depends on messy and unpredictable human factors. New and exciting doors are opened when you can rely on the administrative competence of a Mitch McConnell, or the preternatural charisma of a Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, personal honor is incredibly significant, because you can’t get anything done in politics if nobody trusts your word. And in this context honor also means reciprocity—you need to punish people who hurt you or betray you and reward people who help you. This creates an effective incentive structure to undergird the rules of political gamesmanship.
Note that all of these principles are metapolitical, not political!
I do not have any doctrinaire object-level political philosophy that proceeds syllogistically from first principles. That is why I am not a “principled” advocate of any ideology like white nationalism, libertarianism, or Catholic integralism. It is likewise why I reject such ideologies as mostly retarded and unworkable.
No ideology gives you literally all the tools you need to handle the challenges of a dynamic world. I therefore deem it essential to build a flexible coalition of agentic and high openness people from all ideologies and backgrounds who can respond with agility and flexibility to new conditions on the ground, while providing key insights that others in the coalition might miss about the practical nuances of any given situation.
I will freely admit I’m often pulled in different directions by countervailing moral intuitions and personal affiliations. Sometimes I put on a libertarian hat, sometimes I put on an identitarian hat, and sometimes I am motivated chiefly by loyalty and reciprocity. But I never oscillate randomly or by blind sentiment—I draw from my intuitions very carefully, using heuristics that have proven reliable in the past.
My good friend and collaborator Philippe M. did a fantastic job fleshing out my metapolitics and contrasting it with Hanania’s more ideological approach as follows:
Unfortunately, not everyone on the right properly understands this mindset. Many see a Burkean / Scrutonian approach as shifty, unreliable, or devoid of principles. And while John himself certainly doesn’t hold this view, it appears from all available evidence that his good friend Dave Greene (AKA The Distributist) very much does.
This is salient because in this piece John calls me out for being too hard on Greene in a comment I posted on ecks dot com. But had he paid closer attention to the wider situation at play, I think he’d better understand the point I was making here.
Several weeks ago I published an article called Jeb Bush Was Right.
Despite the provocative title, this was an introspective piece that mostly laments the part I played in eroding the country’s norms of civicmindedness and truth-telling as a fairly prominent Trump supporter back in 2015:
Trump’s a moron in a lot of respects, but there’s no one on the planet more talented when it comes to scamming resentful idiots at scale. He instinctively knows how to weaponize the friend-enemy distinction like no one else.
Crucially, he understands that people who paint themselves as cynical outsiders are usually the most credulous and gullible of all when you show them a little love. Meanwhile, it’s easy to exploit the arrogance of weird nerds who feel unappreciated by other elites. Guys like that are always itching to let the fox in the henhouse.
And that’s how Trump bamboozled a movement of intelligent and disagreeable men into becoming his staunchest cultural vanguard, while agitating against their own interests to empower a mob of cynical grifters and resentful, anti-intellectual yokels.
This sentiment very obviously makes perfect sense in the context of a more situational and transactional politics based around good faith coalition-building and personal honor. But it doesn’t make sense if you are simply an inflexible rightist ideologue—to such men it will come off as cravenly cucking or cynical engagement farming.
And sometimes it even provokes conspiratorial insinuations about your motives:
When I first saw this my initial reaction was confusion.
To this date I have never consumed any of Greene’s content, but lots of people I respect have emphatically recommended him on various occasions.
So surely this man is worth engaging with. Right?
Here Greene is simply revealing himself to be painfully low in openness to experience. He doesn’t respect the fact that saying something novel or provocative will often allow you to approach an issue from a more oblique high-leverage angle that enables you to win considerably more hearts and minds over to your cause.
See my article Pro-Lifers are Murdering Babies for a practical example of this.
At any rate, I’m not sure how anyone who actually listens to the Richards on a regular basis could deny that these are both insanely principled men. They’re undeniably pragmatic in advancing their principles, and both of them have a massive contrarian streak, but within the context of their respective worldviews, such impulses are entirely legitimate (if not explicitly lauded as anti-authoritarian / Faustian).
But tradcaths—much like non-Hananiac libertarians and non-Spencerite WNs—have a hard time properly understanding rhetoric and metapolitics. Even the high IQ ones like Greene will demand you mirror their rigid / syllogistic approach to debate while chuddishly stigmatizing rhetorical creativity, creating a shallow and simplistically masculine communicative framework that is mogged by libtard mean girls every day.
Being unfamiliar with Mr. Greene—but all too aware of this tendency—I attempted to humor his last response in an earnest / formalist way, sending him an article where I explain the exact nature of my rightist politics in a relatively straightforward fashion.
Naturally this produced a very bitchy and supercilious response
Greene chose not to respond after this, and ultimately disengaged. But this exchange left a serious impact on me, and was a central motivating factor in writing my essay Conservatives Suck at Art, where I castigate the right for its chuddish bigotry:
…to a certain type of conservative mind my style comes off as shifty slimy sophistry. They have an instinctive aversion to rhetorical provocation, and think of posts like this as “engagement farming” because, again, they don’t understand art. They don’t see you as trustworthy or “serious” unless you write in a very boring and direct way.
They obsess over tensions in your worldview because they don’t have the emotional intelligence to see the world as a messy and complicated place that’s inescapably contradictory and makes hypocrites of us all. To these guys the only legitimate approach to political debate is stoically presenting your opinions as a straightforward “platform” or “ideology” with perfectly Kantian internal coherence.
This mindset is frankly retarded.
Having fixed views on object-level issues is basically just LARPing. Nobody of consequence thinks this way in practice, and virtually nothing in politics gets done like this. You will always refine and pivot your exact positions based on edge cases, in accordance with changing macroeconomic / technological / geopolitical conditions, or in response to coalitional pressures.
How I feel about trade, immigration, monetary, or foreign policy is hugely circumstantial, so I don’t feel any pressing need to write some elaborate general treatise explaining my views on all these things. I can just align directionally with subject matter experts in my coalition where appropriate, and instead focus my energies on more engaging topics where I have something interesting to say.
Greene and I wouldn’t cross paths again until just a few days ago, when he got into a Twitter confrontation over surrogacy with TracingWoodgrains, the “gay ex-Mormon furry” who brought me back as an eceleb and publicly clashed with me on a rationalist podcast before joining me for a much less adversarial discussion on my own pod.
Trace and I can hardly be called allies, and just in terms of object-level policies I’d assume that I overlap with him a lot less than I do with Dave Greene. But I also trust him infinitely more, and that type of personal honor has become enormously salient to me, because you simply can’t form a coalition with someone you don’t trust.
That’s why I left that comment to which Arcto objected so vigorously:
To put it plainly, Trace has always treated me fairly—especially when the two of us were at odds—and because of that I have absolute conviction in his personal character.
As of now, Greene inspires no such confidence. Others vouch for him, and that means something, but in communications with me he has been dismissive and bigoted.
That matters because a central element of transactional politics is reciprocity. You need to create a favorable incentive structure by punishing people for treating you poorly and sticking by people who deal with you in good faith.
In this case the gay centrist furry has consistently like a valorous knight, while the hard right trad Catholic has acted like a pedantic menopausal schoolmarm. And in coalitional politics a 30% overlap you trust 100% is worth infinitely more than a 60% overlap you don’t trust at all.
Anyway, I really mean what I said in the above comment, and in this recent addendum:
Generally speaking, I’m skeptical that anything good can come from empowering and allying with religious extremists like Dave Greene.
Don’t get it twisted—I’ll absolutely work with religious moderates and secular people more socially conservative than myself. There are, in fact, plenty of issues (porn, Tinder, female sexual agency…) where I have much more socially conservative instincts than most people, and am very interested in substantially reforming society.
But my arguments to such ends are always pitched in entirely secular, transactional, and civicminded language designed primarily to appeal to the reader’s rational self-interest. To me this is the only remotely tenable path for socially conservative rhetoric.
The moment you start weaponizing man’s disgust impulse is the moment you lose me.
But perhaps Arcto’s right. Maybe I misjudged Dave.
Maybe I simply caught him on a bad day, and he’s normally as reasonable and sophisticated a thinker as John claims. I had some reason to think this at first, because after our exchange on Twitter, I was able to get Dave momentarily interested in hashing out our disagreement on my pod.
Sadly, even then he maintained that same bitchy and chuddish attitude:
You get the idea. We took it to the DMs, and currently the discussion logistics are in his court. And I was initially excited about him coming on my pod to clear the air!
But then today I saw this little gem…
It’s quite ironic that such an avowedly “trad” figure would so shamelessly traffic in gossip and conspiratorial innuendo like a teenage girl. Whenever I engage Dave in a manly and straightforward way, he tosses some snark my way, quietly retreats, then strikes at me from the shadows. I hope John is paying close attention to this behavior.
As for Dave Greene himself, all I’ll say is he should take a page from the gay furry’s book and engage me like a man. But sadly, to my chagrin, it’s not easy meeting Greene!
Anyway, that’s quite enough vacuous e-drama for now.
The rest of this essay will be dedicated entirely to grappling with the perennially divisive Homo Question in light of the transactional and coalitional approach to politics outlined more thoroughly above.
I’m going to organize my thoughts numerically, both to impose some space constraint on myself and to make it easier for Arcto et al to respond to specific points.
I will begin by discussing my metapolitical framing and will then end by clarifying my own sensibilities on homosexuality.
I first want to emphasize full-throatedly that The Walt Right is not a “movement,” nor does it belong to any “political faction” as the term is understood by our tea-drinking Zoomer friend. A movement requires an emergent political impulse (i.e. “elect Trump”) that can serve as a kind of “north star” to A) direct and consolidate energy; and B) motivate diverse coalition partners to temporarily put their pet issues aside for the sake of compromise in support of a shared objective. No such impulse currently exists on the intellectual right, so even trying to mobilize such a “movement” would be quite silly at this juncture.
The Walt Right is best understood as a salon aspiring to be a scene aspiring to become a subculture. We are intractably “right wing” insofar as our norms inherently promote differentiation, vitality, and productive conflict, but I am always more than happy to speak with interesting leftists and centrists. As such, there is no ideological litmus test for participation in this community, and this will remain the case in perpetuity. I have zero interest in leading any organization that curtails the discourse space with “red lines” or requires “gatekeeping its left-flank” (to use Arcto’s terminology). I am optimizing for cross-pollination.
The Walt Right is not interested in concrete, object-level political goals. To the extent we’ll pursue any goals as a community, they’ll be metapolitical and cultural—i.e. mainstreaming discussion of a thorny and controversial topic; devising a creative “line” to take that stimulates productive discussion; or creating a new vocabulary to facilitate transactional coalition-building between external factions. These efforts will generally appear nonpartisan and broadly civicminded.
The Walt Right must be a welcoming and convivial space to partake in new kinds of discussions that probe the edges of acceptable discourse under safe and controlled conditions. This is easily achieved (at least in the early stages of community building), as our group is functionally selected for sky-high openness to experience, while my marketing tactics often employ abrasive low resolution filters that scare away people who won’t fit in.
The basic teleology of (4) is to create a giant “intellectual pool” we all can swim around in. Inside this pool restrictive speech norms collapse and the visceral friend-enemy distinction of normie life vanishes, which lets us enter into an exciting new realm of possibilities for both competition and cooperation.
At any moment during a swim, you are free to leave the pool and return to the sort of dry-land, object-level politics Arcto is discussing in his article. We all have our own platforms here on Substack, and that is the realm where you can go on to form a movement, join a faction, maintain a high stakes friend-enemy distinction, maintain your red lines etc. But nothing like this is going to involve me or any Walt Right platforms anytime soon, and I won’t tolerate consensus-building behavior in any of the spaces I directly control.
Within the pool, swimmers are obviously allowed (and even encouraged) to splash at each other and play-fight, but there are certain courtesy norms expected of everyone. For instance, you can’t just drown someone, or throw them back onto dry land. You also aren’t allowed to pee in the pool, i.e. by referring to surrogacy as “child trafficking” or something. Arcto obviously has every right to do that here because he’s on his own platform, but I don’t want that kind of hysterical language on anything in *my* world. And I’d say exactly the same thing about radfems calling prostitution rape or MRAs calling circumcision baby mutilation.
Most courtesy norms should remain uncodified. This isn’t Reddit. But one exception to give autists a comfy handrail is that in Walt Right spaces you must simply avoid anyone whose identity, beliefs, or behaviors cross your own “red lines.” And as a corollary, you also need to preserve social harmony by not provoking people with something you know crosses a “red line” for them. This has to be a two-way street.
As The Walt Right scales and our community grows more diverse, (8) will become increasingly important, because a sufficiently large community will have people offended by everything and capable of offending in every way. This is the first internal division we’ve faced as a distinct community, but having come out of the Alt Right, I recall MANY such internecine struggles during our 2015-2016 heyday. We fought over Based Jews, gays, trans people, religion, off-white proto-Tate PUA types like Roosh… and I’m not interested in my platform becoming a venue for that kind of shit. So by all means draw whatever red lines you want yourself, but don’t make them my problem or it will distract from our broader mission.
Shifting gears now to a more object-level analysis of gay issues outside the Walt Right’s metapolitical explorations…
In my experience, the average urban hetero guy in this country has “barstool conservative” sensibilities. He is moderately heteronormative and casually homophobic, but also pro-choice and vaguely supportive of gay marriage. He wouldn’t be remotely comfortable going back to a 1995 or even 2008 attitude towards gays—this is basically my own sensibility these days.
Meanwhile, a lot of masculine / conservative straight guys really don’t want to have to think about homosexuality too much. By raising the salience of the issue you will engender some moderate resentment among them that is counterproductive and could be channeled in a much worse woke direction.
Young modern women are ferociously protective of male gays, and any perceived action against them (these days gay marriage is a non-issue so it will be surrogacy etc.) threatens to provoke a huge thermostatic backlash against the GOP and broader social conservatism in young women.
Practically speaking, gay marriage is a “red line” for an incredibly small proportion of the modern straight population. It’s just a weird thing for anyone who isn’t very religious to care about from an avowedly restrictionist direction. Yes, that means everyone kind of thinks of Obama circa 2008 as fascist—they are simply comfortable with that conclusion.
John specifically advocates “marriage privatization” as an interim step, but I don’t see any demand for this policy, and it would create a lot of weird gray areas around property, alimony, etc. You’d also run into PR issues with it being so libertarian and incel-coded that nobody wants to admit they like the policy.
To the extent there exists any popular sentiment against gay marriage in the West today, it is either A) associated mostly with the trans movement, and would disappear alongside the most odious aspects of trans ideology; or B) associated with an extreme religious fanaticism that wouldn’t be satisfied with merely driving gays back into the closet, and would likely restrict heterosexual behavior as well.
John Arcto is in kind of a unique position, because he specifically wants to return to a sort of 1990s sexual ecology that is extremely tolerant of straight promiscuity but rolls back gay marriage and adoption / surrogacy. This is an incredibly rare pepe belief system, but I’m not at all unsympathetic to it. Hell, if I were Kim Jong Un, I’d embrace Arctoite sensibilities with gusto. Unfortunately I don’t have absolute power. But in practice we almost always observe that when a state attempts to roll back social progress it is very hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Think Iran and Afghanistan, Victorian England, etc.
In any diverse coalitional society, you will only be able to draw support for a rollback from fanatical Christians / Muslims, and if those guys win they’re absolutely gonna start making it illegal to “fornicate” with your girlfriend. This isn’t idle speculation either, trads very explicitly say they want this to be illegal, and many think it’s just as bad as gay shit (if not worse because straight promiscuity is “contaminating” marriageable women—you need to be incredibly careful around those incel types). I don’t want to empower these guys one iota. In fact, I quite like having gays around as a “buffer” between me and them.
John writes:
And I think the real danger of this EHC Right is that it becomes an ‘IDW 2.0’, or to be more generous ‘IDW with HBD mixed in’. It simply absorbs all those disaffected liberals who have been pushed out of their own side, but have not repudiated their former positions. They still take the left’s previous advances and assumptions for granted, and worse, start getting entitled and aggressive when they realise that certain people still haven’t forgotten what those things led to.
The thing is John also takes plenty of the left’s previous advances / assumptions for granted. He just wants to arbitrarily stop them at 1992. Amish instinct!
When you use “kidnapping” / “human trafficking” language to describe surrogacy situations you risk turning people against you in the same way vegans do when they say “meat is murder”. Adopting an unconventional nomenclature is best done internally. Also you make it personal on a level that really isn’t doing you any favors. Look, I have my differences with Trace, and I am not entirely comfortable with surrogacy and gay adoption myself… but putting it in these very extreme terms creates a vibe where it feels like you’re accusing Trace of something much worse. As someone personally loyal to him, I suggest you take a different approach.
John says the following:
Walt is choosing to buy into the propaganda that forces an equal standard between heterosexuality and ‘gay marriage’. But just a simple look at history shows that heterosexuality promiscuity whilst homosexuality was not given equal standing has been far more common than the reverse, it was the norm from 1960 to around 2008. It may be an uncommon view in the Anglosphere now, but doesn’t mean my view is an uncommon view historically. It is still a normal view in places like Russia, which is relatively secular and not very religious though very heteronormative.
More like 1970 to 2005. And hell, even this period was complicated by sex negative feminism and political lesbianism, the AIDS crisis, etc. And even then, it only lasted a generation, really—compared to the hundreds of years of stigmatized hetero promiscuity before this period, and the millennia of weird gay shit that are likely before us, this beautiful era you and I perceive as a Golden Age was a veritable blip!
Anyway, I don’t think Russia is a good counterexample, they are just a few decades behind the West because of communism. These days Poland etc. is already modernizing, and Russia won’t be that far behind.
As mentioned earlier, I have very heteronormative priors and don’t myself feel comfortable with gay adoption / surrogacy. But am I going to myself expend political capital to end this thing? Obviously not.
There are a lot of gay parents who ostensibly meet some threshold where trying to stop this is simply no longer attractive or “worth it.” The juice isn’t worth the squeeze, because pushing back at the level Arcto demands would require you to become a single issue voter who annoys people by demanding they pick an insanely personal fight with their gay friends.
Gay guys are disproportionately very powerful / wealthy / competent. Making an enemy of them is like making an enemy of Jews. It just puts you ten spaces behind from the very start. And just like with Jews, taking such a stance will horribly alienate even most high status straight people, who have lots of gay friends.
Even as a fairly conservative straight guy, I have a lot of gay guys who support my various projects or help me make money in various ways. These dudes are smart, conscientious, and agentic. Complicating this is going to make people choose between you and their gay friends / business associates, and you really don’t want to push people into that sort of harsh ultimatum, especially as a young man still accumulating power and influence in the world.
By saying things like “I consider gay marriage an absolute litmus test” Arcto is simply ghettoizing himself. You only impose a litmus test when you have power.
He is also taking a very autistic / formalist stance that overstates how much most straight guys buy into any of this stuff. Most of the time you say what you need to in order to be polite / empathetic, and then you move on. You can easily support a much more gender essentialist / heteronormative society without adopting such a radical posture against our current institutions that functionally makes you an enemy of normal society (plus the vast majority of elites). It would be extremely retarded and self-sabotaging to force people into making these sorts of decisions while you are still a tiny minority and there is literally no need to force the issue.
Anyway I could go on, but you get the drift… Ultimately I don’t care that much about the gay issue, and never really have, so I want to talk about something else now.
If Arcto wants to respond to this, I’m sure a gay dude can take the issue up so I can focus on other topics. But both factions must keep this outside the Walt Right from now on, or if they discuss it in my spaces must talk like dispassionate autistic robots.
I won’t let either side of this debate turn it into a wedge issue that unnecessarily divides my community and compromises an essential metapolitical project for literally no reason—at this point the stakes are simply too high
Anyway, throw me a sub if you haven’t, and stand by for some truly amazing episodes of Walt Right Perspectives over the coming days.
I was quite libertine in my youth and still support sexual freedom, but I don’t make it a part of my identity. Otherwise, dead on.
I used to be soft on gays all the time. Then I realized that my inability to achieve an erection was most likely due to the fact that I am not attracted to men.
So now I just do oral.
You’re welcome.