So, how about the Politics of Desire? This - the toxic “mens’ rights” discourse

 I've talked about the toxicity of some performative masculinity here before: the "incel" subculture is a scourge on mature discourse about desire. 

But there is more to this toxic performative masculinity. For example, this 45-year old Australian socialite who had sex with a 14-year old boy and was taken to court. The discourse over this is very jokey, with puns about horses (this woman's dad was a famous horse breeder etc. etc.) and being taken very lightly. So let's look at this, then. 

Let's first make sense of this very old dilemma - the ho-hum deliberation over whether this pedophilia is "really that bad" because "every 14-year-old boy wants that" - right? Every 14-year-old boy is horny? Etc.

Here's the contra to that. Sure, I'd say that has some credence as a defense if the 14-year-old had sex with, say, a 19-year-old woman. But this is not that story. 

It's not about the age difference totally. It's about the life experiences etc. - the life experience of a 45-year-old woman compared to a 14-year-old boy? What's going to be the power dynamic in that situation?

Now - it's not the same as if the genders were reversed. Admit that - the penis does mean something. But the addition this deliberation needs is very simple: what would the conversation look like if a slightly older guy asked our 14-year-old - "okay, we know about you and so and so, etc; and are you aware that, you know, she want's something out of that relationship and so on; and what are you getting out of it?" Because clearly, a 45-year-old woman who would have sex with a 14-year-old does it "for fun" but also to feel "young again" etc. And what is a 14-year-old boy going to get out of that? Just "fun"? - Likely, he says that; just "fun". And this is the problem: a form of fascism - "doing something just because it feels good" is the softer road to the worse fascism. "She is teaching him" - no, she is teaching him, but to abdicate his responsibility to have a purpose for what he does beyond "feeling good."

Let's be clear that this woman's defense is playing on the insecurity that underlies this toxic "men's rights" victim discourse - these "men's rights" fools say men can be raped by women, too - but at the same time these same ones say that, yeah, they would have acquiesced to a situation like this that they would oppose if they had evidence a woman "did it" to someone else in a way that they could attack legally. "Men's rights" folks might care, broadly, about this, but seem far more interested in bringing grievances to the courts than extending solidarity to other men in a tight spot, and telling them the hard truths, even when they're hard.

I've talked about the super-toxic incel subculture here, and why it's foolish - but the broader problem is that some vocal groups of men are dead-set on presenting themselves as the victims of women before the courts. And this victim discourse includes both incels and these men's rights "advocates". But if these call themselves advocates, what are they advocating by their conduct and work? To complain about how women are picking on you - but not helping men to be better? Be honest: if you bring a problem to the courts, if accepted, the courts are going to define that problem as the way things are. You want the menfolk to be defined as victims? 

No? Good. 

If you say, yes, then clearly this "men's rights" discourse is crypto-sexist: you want to handicap yourselves so that your successes look larger and more significant. I have no patience with this.