You neglected to mention the most obvious: the pregnant he-she-it pictured at the top. It sets a homosexual tone to the article.
Valizadeh agrees with masculinity author Jack Donovan that men have been feminised by a culture that rejects and ridicules male characteristics and habits.
Now in that line, he doesn't directly implicate "gay agenda", but I would argue that it is certainly implicit.
He's implicating the feminized culture at large. Nowhere in the article does the author specifically implicate homosexuals as part of the problem; this is no exception.
Some women, too, horrified by what lesbianised third-wave feminism claims to do in their name, opt out of the argument.
But at the same time, there is an explicit noting of the "lesbian-ised", and so also an implicit indictment of the "gay-ified" male voices.
He's throwing dykes under the bus (not that they don't deserve it). This is part and parcel of the long-term homosexual agenda. Shifting alliances: dykes do nothing for homosexuals sexually; obtaining virgin male ass is their endgame.
It’s not just video games and casual sex that young men are retreating into. They are also immersing themselves in fetishes that to their grandparents’ generation would resemble grounds for incarceration, and which drive them further away from the formerly fairer sex. Consider, for example, the example of furry culture and anthropomorphic animal sex fetishism, both of which are experiencing explosive growth, fuelled by the internet. Jack Rivlin’s student newspaper The Tab, which we encountered in part one, has noticed the trend [furry & other fetishisms] spreading on UK campuses. (It’s already rife throughout the US.) Other alternative sexual behaviours, including homosexuality and transgenderism, are more prevalent on campus now too.
Admitting that kind of thing -- that the "tolerance" for and acceptance of one aberrant "Sexual dysfunction" (the author's term, in fact his opening words) will and in fact is leading to increasing amounts of other things...
Regarding this passage, you should be saying (as I am): "I see what you did there"; "furry and other fetishisms" are indeed eccentric and aberrant, but in no shape or form can one equate that to the perverse abomination that is homosexuality. The author is conflating all sexually abnormal behaviors, regardless of scale. How ridiculous would this sound: "Crime is up; rates of murder and rape have risen, and likewise for jaywalking and speeding." By the way, rubbing one one while wearing a giant teddy bear outfit is hardly deviant; next they'll condemn a guy for wanking while only wearing socks and call it a fetish.
That first paragraph contains something that is RARELY admitted... that the "gay population" is in fact incredibly TINY -- the standard propaganda is to push the INSANELY exaggerated "10%" figure. That alone is likely to lead to a "thumping" for being politically incorrect.
Hardly an outrage. 1% is the accepted figure nowadays, although they had people going with that 10% bullshit for a while.
... and that therefore the homosexual activities and "lifestyle" ARE a matter of "choice"; they are something someone CHOOSES to "indulge" in... rather than being something that is inherent and genetically predetermined
He's just acknowledging homosexuals' history of being in the closet. You're giving the author entirely too much credit.
But now [gay men] they’re settling down with men, in many cases not having children at all. In other words, a healthy chunk of the most desirable men—men who no doubt would have cooed along approvingly to feminist exhortations—are now off the market, leaving even fewer eligible men in the dating pool.
But at the same time... He goes on to make points that are HUGELY counter to the pro-homo propaganda: If one accepts the premise (as the agitprop claims, ad nauseum) that "homosexuality" is not simply actions/behaviors/choices, but a genetically pre-determined "identity", an in-born "hard-wired" preference: then per his statement/data here the "tolerance" of gay-couples leading to them having NO children, will inevitably lead to their extinction (or certainly -- within a generation -- to becoming an even tinier sub-1% minority).
Putting men at ease, that they're no threat: "although we're smarter than you, we're not taking women, so there's more for you" as well as "we're a dying people since we aren't reproducing like we used to."
All this comes before we even discuss the rapid growth of sadomasochistic sex among the young and the “new civil rights frontier” of transgenderism, a psychiatric disorder currently in the process of being repackaged by the Left as an alternative sexual lifestyle.
Both of those highlighted points are ENTIRELY counter to the standard propaganda; the first -- the admission of aberrant things like sadomasochism (counter to the entirely disingenuous pseudo-squeeky-clean image of gays, and that "alternate" lifestyles are NOT "disorders") -- and then with the second statement to come right out and explicitly call "transgender" stuff what it is "a psychiatric disorder"
Once again, their endgame is to turn normal men into one of them, and they're throw trannies under the bus to do it. Note the author said "transgenderism, a psychiatric disorder", not "homosexuality, a psychiatric disorder". Trannies are hardly more sexually useful to homosexuals than dykes, since trannies are probably the least desirable sexual partner for a typical homosexual, their version of the omega male.
especially with the recent and nearly complete "victory" of same-sex marriage battle -- that this is the FIRST VOLLEY (and a subversive quasi-rejection, but raising the subject) towards the NEXT goal: the desensitization to and eventually "normalization" and tolerance/acceptance of the ACTUAL (non-vanilla) fetishes of homosexuals and "alternate lifestyle advocates"
Absolutely. That was the point of this entire article. He won't overwhelm the reader with too much homosexual talk, but just enough here and there, while putting themselves in a positive light. By the end, you're expected to almost feel grateful to homosexuals.
And yes... although I think it is a significant stretch... It could be seen as a bit of an attempt to convince or even "merge" perceptions of, or form some kind of an odd "alliance" with, or (and I think your point here is a HUGE stretch) to "butter-up/seduce" young MGTOW'ers.
Hardly a stretch. If we're not careful, MGTOW may become the greatest recruitment tool homosexuals have ever had. After all, nature abhors a vacuum; a void existing where women once existed in one's life, one can potentially become corrupted to replace it with homosexuality.
I really don't think that last is very plausible. Yes, young quasi-MGTOW guys probably ARE very vulnerable to being "recruited" (and/or taken advantage of) by homosexual men... but the cause will not lie with articles like this one
You're underestimating them. They have logical male brains combined with a female capacity to deceive and manipulate. MGTOW is inherently heterosexual and we must be vigilant that it stays that way.